Date: 18-05-2015
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he is a bona fide consumer under the OPs. He is one of the joint owners, occupiers, and possessors of a homestead land with residential house by virtue of inheritance. He applied for a service connection before the OP No. 2 in the year 2000 and as per the demand of the latter, paid a total sum of Rs. 1,660/- toward cost of materials, security deposit and service charge. Subsequently, the OP No. 2 effected service connection to his residence and installed a new meter for this purpose on 17-10-2000. However, on 24-10-2000, they disconnected the said service connection and also removed the electric meter without any prior notice to him. Therefore, he approached different officials of the OPs to restore service connection over a long period of time and even sent letters to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as well as the Minister-in-Charge of Power and Non-conventional Energy Sources. Ultimately, on 26-06-2012, the OPs arbitrarily asked him to submit valid documents of ownership of the land and house of the petitioner, to which he sent due reply vide letter dated 11-07-2012. However, till date the OPs have not taken any positive action to restore the service connection. Hence, the case.
Case of the OPs, on the other hand, is that on receipt of a complain from the Complainant on 11-08-2011, it was learnt that the Complainant had deposited necessary charges for domestic connection on 28-03-2000 and meter was installed w.e.f. 17-10-2000, but no record of disconnection or removal of meter was available, as alleged by the Complainant, though connection has not been effected. They attempted effecting service connection and meter installation on 12-08-2011, but could not do so due to objection and refusal of inhabitants present at site. The premises of desired connection was already enjoying power from service connection in respect of Con. No. A570062 in the name of Rintu Kr. Roy, and the Complainant has not submitted any document of occupation of legal and physically separate premises in his favour. The matter was intimated vide letter dated 13-08-2011 to the Complainant, to which no reply has been received. Vide his letter dated 11-07-2012, the Complainant denied attempt of splitting of load without any document. The concerned official of the OPs, being unable to process the connection of the meter, due to non-availability of any suitable document, from the Complainant, was compelled to dispose of the matter and intimation to this effect given to the Complainant vide letter dated 27-07-2012, against which no further reply has been received. That apart, the instant case is barred by limitation insofar as cause of action of the present dispute arose on 24-10-2000, when it is alleged by the Complainant that the meter was removed, but he filed the instant case on 07-06-2013, i.e., after nearly 13 years.
Point for consideration
For the purpose of adjudication of the instant dispute, the following points are framed.
- Whether the instant case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
At the very outset, it is to be stated that none of the parties has placed on record any original copy of document in support of their respective cases. However, it is also a fact that none of them disputed the authenticity of any of the said documents and instead referred the same to articulate their averments. Therefore, we too accept the same at its face value.
Point No. 1:
Ld. Advocate for the OPs has submitted that the instant complaint case is barred by limitation. It is alleged that the OPs removed the meter on 24-10-2000. In terms of Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Complainant ought to have approached within two years from the date of occurrence of such alleged cause of action. However, he filed the case only on 07-06-2013, i.e., after the lapse of nearly 13 days. Such a hopelessly time barred case, if admitted, would result in severe perversion of justice towards the OPs.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, however, has submitted that notwithstanding cause of action of this case arose on 24-10-2000 for the first time when they removed the meter in question, the OPs arbitrarily issued a letter on 26-06-2012, against which he sent a reply vide letter dated 11-07-2012. However, since the OPs did not take any positive action despite receipt of such clarification from his end, he has been compelled to move the instant complaint petition and thus, the cause of action is still continuing and so there is no justification raising such an arbitrary plea by the OPs.
Undisputedly, in connection with the present dispute, a correspondence was made from the side of the OPs lastly on 26-06-2012. That being so and given the fact the instant case filed on 07-06-2013, the instant case is not hit by limitation.
This issue, thus, answers in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that on receipt of his application for a new service connection, the OP No. 2 caused due inspection to his premises and thereafter, issued quotations with a direction to deposit requisite money to facilitate effecting service connection to his dwelling house and accordingly, he deposited the same 28-03-2000. Thereafter, on 17-10-2000, the OP No. 2 installed a new meter in his name bearing no. HH707919 and also provided a meter card having serial no. 1429636. However, suddenly on 24-10-2000, the OPs disconnected the service connection and without any notice or order, removed the same. Thereafter, he ran from pillar to post to restore the disconnected line, but to no avail. Out of disguise, when he brought the matter to the notice of the concerned Ministers of the Government of West Bengal, following their intervention, the OPs issued a letter on 26-06-2012 asking him to submit valid documents of ownership of the land and house of the Complainant. Clarifying his position to the queries of the OPs, though he submitted his written reply on 11-07-2012, till date they have not taken any positive action. Thanks to the lackadaisical approach of the OPs, he has suffered a lot. As such, necessary direction be given to the OPs to install an electric meter to his house and restore the service connection without any further delay and provide adequate compensation commensurate to the immense mental/physical stress and agony suffered by him and his family members over the last 15 years, besides incurring huge financial loss for this purpose.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs, on the other hand, has submitted that the service connection was never effected to the house of the Complainant. In fact, when they tried to effect service connection and meter installation on 12-08-2011, they faced stiff resistance from the inhabitants of the premises in question. Also, another service connection already exists to the said premises vide Consumer No. A570062 in the name of Rintu Kr. Roy and the Complainant had not submitted any document of occupation of legal and physically separate premises. As per WBSEDCL rules, more than one connection of identical category cannot be given to the same premises which is treated as splitting of load. So, the Complainant was requested to cooperate and submit valid records/documents about possession of his physical and legally separate premises, to which no satisfactory reply could be provided by him. In such circumstances, for want of cogent documentary evidence from the side of the Complainant to justify his claim, the OPs had no other alternative but to dispose of the matter under intimation to the Complainant. Also, insofar as the earlier Electricity Act has since ceased to exist and the Electricity Act, 2003 has comes into force, there is no scope to take cognizence of the allegations of the Complainant. There was no deficiency in service on their part and therefore, the instant case be dismissed in limine.
Although the OPs vehemently denied that they ever effected service connection in favour of the Complainant or installed meter for this purpose, the Meter Card No. 1429636, issued by the OPs in the name of the Complainant, clearly shows the date of connection as 17-10-2K with initial meter reading 0003 as on that date. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that service connection in favour of the Complainant was indeed effected by the OPs and a meter for this purpose was also installed. So, the onus of proving bona fide of their action in the matter of removal of the meter in question or disconnecting the service line concerned without serving any notice whatsoever upon the Complainant was upon the OPs, but they have miserably failed to come up with any plausible explanation to justify their action. This is a clear act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that service connection was indeed not effected or meter installed by the OPs in favour of the Complainant, that also does not lessen the sin of the latter for the simple reason that sending agency personnel after 11 long years from the date of receipt of quotation money from a prospective consumer, does not manifest and show any sense of responsibility on the part of a service provider. OPs are not doing any charity by providing electricity to consumers, but doing so against charges. More so, as a service provider, they have an obligation to render due service to a consumer.
Sec. 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 runs as follows:-
“Obligation on licensee to supply energy. – Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the license, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply……..”
It is unbelievable that the OPs were taking more than a decade to provide electricity to others in the said locality during the year 2000, when the Complainant applied for service connection.
Coming to the issue of resistance posed by the inhabitants of the premises in question to the agency personnel deputed by the OPs on 12-08-2011, although it is claimed that they apprised the Complainant about such resistance vide their letter dated 13-08-2011, they have not placed on record copy of the concerned letter to substantiate their claim. Even if it is assumed that a letter to this effect was indeed sent, we cannot overlook the fact that the OPs were legally empowered to take necessary legal steps against the obstructionists. Despite there being no status quo order/injunction in force from any competent Court of Law, why the OPs did not inform the police authorities remains unanswered. We often tend to forget that public office is not a place to show high handedness by public servants, but it is meant to render due assistance/service to common people.
The OPs cannot deny that it was obligatory on their part to carry out detail inspection of the premises and prepare an inspection report ascertaining amongst other factors whether any service connection existed in the premises concerned, or not. If existed, whether any splitting of load occurred or not. Importantly, such an exercise is required to be carried out upon receipt of an application for service connection from a prospective consumer and invariably before deposit of quotation money for security deposit, service charge, etc. Raising such issues after more than 11 years from the date of receipt of service charge in oblique forms cannot be allowed. Even if benefit of doubt is afforded to them, it does not take away the fact that they raised such question after removing the meter from the premises of the Complainant without serving any prior notice to him, thereby robbing off the Complainant any chance to defend his position. Even a criminal is accorded due opportunity to defend his case, but in the instant case, the OPs did not tread such path for the reasons best known to them. Clearly, they have treaded another path being propped up by some designed persons malafidely.
It transpires from the record that the Complainant vide a letter dated 11-07-2012 clarified his position in respect of the issue of splitting of load raised by the OPs vide letter dated 26-06-2012 stating inter alia that he lives in the said premises along with his brothers separately and there exist two service connections – one in the name of his elder brother, Sri Nirmal Chandra Roy and the other in the name of his younger brother, Sri Rintu Kumar Roy. Why then different treatment was meted out to them without raising the issue of splitting of load. It further appears from the photocopy of said letter that the Complainant did not make any attempt to duck any of the issues raised by the OPs vide their letter dated 26-06-2012 and tried to satisfy their queries in a precise, yet clear and straight-forward manner. However, still the OPs remained unmoved and did not deem it necessary to swung into action on a priority basis to put an end to this long pending vexed matter. If the need be, the OPs could have caused re-inspection to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the Complainant in this regard, but they preferred to dispose of the matter, the copy of which has neither been allegedly received by the Complainant nor placed on record for our evaluation.
We find no force in the contention of the OPs that since the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into force and regulations have been framed, there is no scope to take cognizance of the allegations of the Complainant for the simple reason that enactment of new law does not exonerate a service provider of its liability.
It is an open secret that common people/consumers often get the short end of the stick. However, the manner in which the norms of accountability have been thrown to the windows and rules & regulations have been twisted/bent upon in a sordid show of conceit by the OPs for 15 long years, probably an exemplary compensation can only bring justice to the Complainant to some extent and mitigate his sufferings that he endured all these years.
Both these issues, thus, decided in favour of the Complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OPs are directed to effect service connection to the premises of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. They are also jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In case of default, OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid compensation amount from this date till compliance of this order in toto.
