PER :HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of complainant to impeach the judgement/final order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (In short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.40/2016 whereby the complaint lodged by the appellant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest. 

            The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that opposite party Nos. 1&2 are the lawful owner in respect of the land and building lying and situated at R.S. Dag No.2277 (P), R.S. Khatian No 2587, Mouza- Kamrabad, P.S.- Sonarpur, District- South 24 Parganas  within the local limits of Ward No.7 of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality.  The complainant has applied for installation of domestic electric connection at his residential home and submitted the same to the Station Manager, Sonarpur Group Electric Supply, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and to that effect deposited Rs.200/- as earnest money. The Complainant states that at the time of filling up form the complainant has deposited all relevant papers in support of his claim.  The complainant alleged that in spite of complying with all the requirements asked by the OPs, as yet he has not received the domestic connection from the OP Nos.1&2 although there is an existing pole from which the connection will be effect to the complainant and there is also the common passage upon which service connection would be drawn and on the said common passage there are other service connection for other neighbours.  The complainant has submitted that he has made repeated representations to OP Nos. 1&2 but by a letter dated 15.03.2012, the OP No.2 communicated to him that the authorised contractor  could not effect connection because physical objection raised by local public and local body.  Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP Nos. 1&2 with prayer for following reliefs, viz.- a) to direct the OP Nos. 1&2 to install new electric connection at the premises of the complainant; b) to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony; c) to pay cost of proceedings etc.

            The respondent Nos. 1&2 being OP Nos. 1&2 by filing a written version have stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation.  According to the OP Nos.1&2, the complainant is bound to make arrangement for free way leave in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3.2.1 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (W.B.E.R.C) but the complainant failed to make arrangement of free way leave and, therefore, they could not give the new electric connection in the house of the complainant.  The OP Nos. 1&2 have stated that as there was no deficiency in services on their part, the complainant should be dismissed with costs.

            After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order dismissed the complaint on contest against OP Nos. 1&2 and dismissed ex-parte against OP Nos. 3 to 6 without any order as to costs.  To assail the said order, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

            Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has committed an error by holding the complaint is barred by limitation.  He has submitted that the appellant is a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as appellant has paid the requisite fees for the purpose of installation of electricity at his residence and unless the electricity line is installed after receipt of the said requisite fees, cause of action is a continuous one.

            Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1&2, on the other hand, has contended that the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court on two occasions and on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent Nos. 2 by an order dated 03.11.2012 passed a reasoned order to the effect that no electric connection could be installed due to absence free way leave.  Therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with.

            I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record.

            Admittedly, the appellant is a school teacher who has been residing in a plot of land lying and situated at R.S. Dag No.2277 (P), R.S. Khatian No 2587, Mouza- Kamrabad, P.S.- Sonarpur, District- South 24 Parganas  within the local limits of Ward No.7-Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality.  The appellant has applied for electric connection for his own residential house by filing an application in prescribed form and submitted the same to respondent No.2.  The Respondent No.2 by a letter dated 08.07.2011 requested the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.200/- as earnest money and the same has been deposited.  Thereafter, the Respondent NO.2 issued a quotation in favour of appellant and thereby asked to deposit sum of Rs.2672/- on account of service connection charges and security deposit thereof.  The said amount has been deposited by the appellant. 

            Evidently, the appellant has made repeated representations to Respondent Nos.1&2 whereas the Respondent No.2 vide a letter dated 15.03.2012 communicated to the appellant that the authorised contractor could not effect connection because physical resistance by the public.

            The materials on record also indicate that the appellant preferred a writ petition being WP No.23090 (W) of 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.  The Hon’ble High Court passed the direction upon the Respondent Nos. 1&2 for the effective hearing  and to pass reasoned order, thereof.  In compliance with the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondent No.2 has passed reasoned order on 03.11.2012 with an observation that the parties could not mutually agreed upon a clear way through which service connection could be given to the appellant.

            It is also appears  that the appellant again approached the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta  by filing another writ petition being WP No.6566 (W) of 2013 but the same has been dismissed for default.

            The fact and circumstances of the case indicate that the appellant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  However, it has to be seen whether the Respondent Nos. 1&2 were ‘deficient’ in rendering services to the appellant.

            The materials on record indicate that in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in WP No.23090 (w) of 2012, the Station Manager, Sonarpur Customer Care Centre of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. (Respondent No.2) by a reasoned order dated 03.11.2012 has arrived at a conclusion that when the parties could not mutually agreed upon a clear way leave through which electric connection would be installed.  Therefore, the burden lies upon the appellant to give a free way leave to install the said electricity.  In that perspective, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos. 1&2 were deficient in rendering services to the appellant.

            Therefore, though we do not agree with the Ld. District Forum that the complaint is barred by limitation yet we concur the view of the Ld. District Forum regarding dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in services on the part of respondent Nos. 1&2.

            In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

            Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

            The impugned judgment/final order is hereby affirmed.  

            The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur for information.