BY -  SRI   ASISH DEB,  PRESIDENT.

1.         The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant  applied before the OP Distribution Co for an electric connection in his dwelling house  on 15.09.2015. The OP .No. 1 received  the application and caused usual enquiry and being satisfied with the quarries, the OP no. 1 issued quotation on 15.09.2015 in favor of the complainant for new domestic connection. As per said quotation the complainant deposited the quotation money of Rs. 400/-  on the same day i.e 15.09.2015  for electric service connection  vide money receipt No. 130501600702 dated -8.12.2015 and security money deposit of Rs. 347/- vide receipt no. 132801601349 dated 08.12.2015.  But later on the OP no. 1 informed the complainant by  letter dated 15.12.2015 that there is an existing connection in the said premises of the complainant.  The complainant again prayed for survey on 20.09.2016  for separate connection. On 29.09.2019 met with the OP no.1 and requested to effect the domestic connection but the OP no. 1 denied to do that and used filthy languages.

2.     Under the above circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission with a prayer so that the Ops are given a direction for giving electric service connection in the premises of the complainant and for other reliefs.

3.     Summons were issued upon both the OPs. The Ops. Matangini CCC and other filed a single written version and contested the complaint case  and they denied all the material averments of the complaint case and stated inter alia that the complainant filed the petition for domestic connection on 15.09.2015 and subsequently submitted his relevant documents on 30.11.2015. Thereafter, on 02.12.2015 the Op no. 1 inspected the premises of the complainant and at that time the men of the OP no. 1 found that one service connection is already existed in that premises vide meter No.AS497101 in the name of another person who refused to sign in the inspection sheet and as a result the  OP no. 1 could not be satisfied about identity of the premises of the complainant for giving electric connection.  The petitioner disregarded the inspection of the OP no. 1 and out of his own deposited security money on 08.12.2015 without execution of the agreement and filed a petition before the OP no. 1 on 09.12.2015 for resurvey of the premises. As such the OP no 1’s staff again surveyed the premises of the complainant and found the same position and the owner of the existing meter refused to sign the inspection sheet. The Op no. 1 subsequently came to know that in collusion with the existing meter owner, the petitioner wanted to split the load by installing a second meter in the same premises and so, by letter dated 15.12.2015 the OP no. 1 conveyed their inability to give new service connection in favour of the complainant. Strangely enough again the petitioner filed another application on 02.09.2016 and requested the OP no.1 for resurvey of  the premises ; the OP no. 1 inspected and ultimately came to the same conclusion  and thereafter by letter dated 12.12.2016 intimated the petitioner to take back the deposited security money.  Again on 07.02.2019 with a malafide intention filed the application for new connection without separation of the existing holding and the Op no. 1 was compelled to refuse the same application  by letter dated 14.02.2019. The OPs submit that actually the petitioner has no separate holding for taking electric connection and he has filed this harassing complaint only to put the OPs in trouble for which the Ops has strongly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

4.   On the basis of the above facts and circumstances described by the parties, the points need to be decided are:

   (i) Whether the Ops caused any deficiency in service?

   (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

                                           Decision with Reasons.

5.    In Re:- Points No. I & II

6.   As both the points are inter related we are inclined to address  the points simultaneously in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.

7.    We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the Ld Counsel for both parties.

8.  Having regards had to the contents of complaint ,written version evidence and other materials on record, it appears that complainant is a consumer , the instant case is maintainable in its present form in law.

9.    Now, the Ops mainly contended that the inspection done by them indicated that there is an existing Meter in the same premises; the complainant in collusion with present user of the existing meter intends to split the load, which is not permissible as per rule of  WBERC .There is no dispute about the   points raised in the inspection notes; however, it has come to light that the existing meter was in the name of the deceased father of the complainant, and the said meter is used by the elder brother of the complainant . There is nothing to disbelieve the contention that complainant lives in separate mess in the same premises .The Ops have not been able to explain properly as to how the other occupant /brother of the complainant was given the electric connection in the same holding/premises where the existing meter was in the name of the deceased father of the complainant ; then the question of split of load did not crop up.  OPs  should not only be impartial but it should seem to be impartial. After the death of his father the complainant has share in the  holding/premises in question as a legal heir like his brother who was favoured with electric connection .The objection on the ground of split of load posed by the op appears to be baseless. It is the goal of the welfare state to provide electricity to every citizen. A person having an abode of his own  has every right to consume electricity, and the op is duty bound to supply the same. It can not be assumed without any substance that complainant has any collusion with his elder brother for split up the load. Due to the wrong and baseless assumption the op has fallen in the arena of deficiency in service . The complaint is justified.

10.         In the result the complaint case succeeds in part.

11.     Both the points are answered accordingly.           

12.           Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

13.   That the Consumer Case No.  425 of 2019 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.

14.  The OPs are directed to give separate electric connection in the premises occupied by the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order without making any further demands of any costs .

15.   In default of the compliance of the above , the op will be liable to pay compensation of Rs 100/- per diem  from the date of filing of this case until  the compliance of this order and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-

16.    Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties each free of cost.