By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant in brief is that he prayed for electric connection in his premises situated on plot no. 164 under mouza Baghadari PS Bhupuatinagar and got receipt from the office of the OP No.1. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly went to the office of the OP no.1 but heard that his application had been missing. On being advised the complainant again filed another application on 19.11.2010 by deposing E. Money and go receipt. The Khejuri Electric supply office of WBSDCL inspected  the spot on 01.02.2011 and told the complainant to file way leave permission which the complainant complied within due time. But till date the OP No. 1 did not do anything for giving electric connection in the resident of the complainant from 2011. On 05.06.15 the Madhakhali CCC issued quotation in the name of the complainant for electric supply in his house and complainant immediately deposited the quotation money  of Rs 747/-.But till then nothing had been done from the end of OP no.1 and on 24.09.15 OP no.1 told the complainant that if he could show any court’s order then the electric connection can be given in his house.  The complainant states that in spite of filing all the necessary documents by him, the OP did not care to give electric connection in his house.

Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed this case before this Forum for the deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.1 with the prayers as made in the complaint petition.

OP no.1 has contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition and contended that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and under various provisions of law. It is the specific case of this OP that the petitioner applied for electric connection and got receipt  on 10.01.2006.  That application of the complainant went missing from their office and accordingly the complainant filed another application on 19.11.2010 and he deposited E. money and got receipt. During inspection of the spot by the agency of the OP no.1 the complainant was asked to file way leave permission. Complainant also filed the same within due time.  Thereafter the agency of the OP no.1 went to effect the connection and informed the complainant that for effecting the said connection  new LT line  is required to be drawn by installing two nos. of new PCC poles. As required materials are not available the office of the OP no.1 they informed the complainant on 15.07.15. As such the OP no.1 could not effect the service connection for want of the materials as was suggested by them. As soon as the materials will be available to them they will give the service connection in the house of the complainant.

By filing an additional written version the O Pno.1 has stated that one cousin brother of the complainant namely Phanindranath Maity also obstructed the OP no.1 ‘s agency to fix pole at the time of surveying the field. A GDE has-been filed to that effect. The contractor submitted a report accordingly.

This OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

The OP no.2  has  also contested the case by filing written version, supported by affidavit. He has averred in the written version that he is a co-owner of the plot no. 164 wherein the complainant has prayed for electric service connection. It is the case of this OP no.2 that the complainant has not taken any permission from him for drawing electric connection line through his land. So he has objection in drawing electric line to the house of the complainant.

The points for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable and whether the complainant petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

                                                                                      Decisions with Reasons.

Both the issue are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their inter relatedness.

We have perused the allegations of the complainant carefully along with the documents filed by him and also the written versions filed by the OPs in this case.

Admittedly the complainant filed an application for taking electric connection in her residence over plot no. 164 of mouza  Baghadari under PS  Bhupatinagar and the OP no 1 held inquiry and took quotation money and service charge for installation of the said electric connection in his premises. Admittedly the OP no1 could not effect the connection due to alleged opposition and obstruction made by the other OP 2 as well as non fulfilment of the requirement of infrastructure on the part of the complainant.

That matter is pending since 19.11.2010 when admittedly the complainant filed his second application for electric connection at his residential house which was filed on missing of his first such application filed on 10.01.2006 from the office of the OP No.1.

OP No. 1 has stated that the complainant filed application for domestic service connection and as per his application quotation was issued and the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 747/- on 09.06.15. Thereafter as per norms inspection was made from the end of this OP No.1 it was found that three PCC pole is required to be erected for giving service connection in the premises of the complainant. In addition to that  while execution of this work, OP.2 raised objection on the ground that he is a co-owner of the plot no. 164.It is the further case the OP No 1 that in spite of giving information about the requirement of the infrastructure the complainant did not supply the same and as a result they could not provide the electric connection in the house of the complainant.

OP no. 2 appeared in the case by filing written version and countered the case by stating that he is a co-owner of the plot in question and ‘no objection’ has not been taken from him. So, he raises objection in installing the electrical line in the premises of the complainant.

Ld advocate for the OP no.1 pointed out that way leave permission in the specified format in form No 1 will be that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these regulations the licensee shall not be held responsible for the delay if any, improvising the supply or service as specified under regulations 3.0 to 12.0  of these regulations, if the same is on account of problem  relating to the right  of way.

‘Electricity being an essential necessity one cannot be barred from taking the benefit of the same from the Licensee. As such as per Section 43 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 ’ Every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier  of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application for requiring such supply. Moreover the OP-1 had received charges on 09.06.2015 and as sub-section 2 of Sec. 43 it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in Sub-section 1. Section 43 envisages “if a distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within a period specified in Sub-sec. 1 he shall be liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each of default.  That being the statutory provision we do not find why the OP 1 withheld the distribution of electric supply to the occupier of the premises, the complainant herein.

It is admitted position in the case that complainant resides separately in separate premises and OP no.2 reside in his separate premises.

The complainant has filed khatian to show that he is a co-sharer of the disputed plot no. 164. Seen the Khatian and considered. This forum will not see whether there is any dispute relating to land in between the complainant and the OP no1 but it is the liability of the OP no.1 to give service connection when they have received the deposit by issuing quotation.

Ld. Advocate for the OP no.1 has referred to a decision where in it is found that Transmission line of electricity cannot be drawn over without consent of the landowner.

Seen the reported decision.

In view of the above decision and considering the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that when the OP no1 is admittedly a co-sharer and he has filed written version and has taken the plea that his “No objection” was not sought for by the complainant the complainant is liable to show alternative way out for drawing the electric line.

Thus the complaint case succeeds.

The complainant has prayed for Rs.25,000/- for harassment and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost.

Considering that the OP No1 is an autonomous body we want to impose only the litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- on the OP no1.

Hence, it is                                      

                                                                                                 ORDERED

That the CC No. 58 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.

The OP no.1 is directed to give new electric service connection in the premises of the complainant within 20 days from the date of this order provided the complainant submits in writing “way leave” and in execution  of this installation work  and if they face any obstruction from any corner, they are at liberty to take police help.

OP no.1 is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. Failing to give electric service connection in the premises of the complainant  within the time prescribed, the OP no1 will be liable to pay punitive charge of Rs. 100/- per day which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.