Smt. Sangita Paul, Member

This is a case was filed by Shri Satadal Pandey, S/o. Shri Dhirendranath Pandey of Village – East Tentulberia, P.O. – Panchpota, P.S.-Narendrapur, District – South 24 Parganas, West Bengal against the Station Manager Boalia Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited  with a prayer for a direction upon the OP to pay the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- and to impose punitive fee upon two erring officials.

The OP is the Station Manager, Boalia Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.  The address is Tentulberia Road, P.O.-Garia, P.S.-Narendrapur, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Pin – 700 084.

 The complainant, by filing the case, states that he applied for an electric connection for his under-construction second floor.  As it was the third meter in the same premise, the OP refused to give connection.  The complainant applied for re-inspection.  The officials again denied to give connection.  The complainant wanted a separate connection for newly constructed second floor.

The complainant states that he is a consumer u/s 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  He is a consumer because he is the son of the owner of the house where the new electric connection would be effected.  The son of the complainant is the authorized signatory of the application form.  Shri Satadal Pandey would be the owner of the new connection.  The BCCC officials have started a parallel administration to follow alternative systems and procedures for inspection of premises for giving new electric connection in liew of the procedures and guidelines of WBSEDCL.  The Station Manager and the Assistant Manager are jointly and severally liable for harassment of the consumers.

The complaint is limited within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission.  That the complaint is filed within the limitation period of 2 years from the cause of action as defined in Section 69 of C. P. Act. 2019.

The authorized persons (Electricity Inspectors) of BCCC did not carry out inspection guidelines.

The BCCC has adopted restrictive Trade practice in giving new electric connection for delivery of electricity.  They adopted unlawful restrictions.

Hence the complainant prays for a direction upon the OP to pay the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  The complainant also prays for imposing punitive fine in terms of Section 39(1) of the C. P. Act, 2019 upon the two erring officials (Station Manager and Assistant Manager).

The OP, in his written version states that the petition is not maintainable in law or in facts.  The complainant has failed to make out any complaint as envisaged under the C.P. Act, 2019.

The OP  states that Shri Satadal Pandey applied for new service connection at the premises of Village – East Tentulberia, P.S. – Narendrapur, P.O. – Panchpota, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700 152, on 05.03.2018.  After receiving the application, dated, 05.03.2018 the OP carried out an inspection at the said premise.  It appeared that wo separate meters are existing in the name of Dhirendranath Pandey (Complainant’s father) and Maya Pandey (Complainant’s Mother).  Instead of having two meters in the said building, the complainant applied for another meter.  The OP expressed their inability in this regard.  Thereafter the complainant sent a letter on 30.10.2018, the complainant sent a letter for further inspection.  After inspection, the OP expressed their inability to give electric connection at the said premise.  It was stated that the complainant cannot get a new electric connection.  Because the complainant cannot be a customer as per Regulation 2(ii) of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. He is also eligible to file any grievance petition, in terms of Regulations 9. 

The OP states that as per Regulation 14, if the intending consumer submits any application for new connection with the intention of splitting of load, to obtain benefit of lower charges, his application would be rejected under the provision of the Electricity Act, if 25% payments have been made shall be for feited by the Distribution License.

As per C P Act, 2019 and Electricity Act and Regulation, the complaint made by the complainant is not tenable.  So the petition is likely to be dismissed.

There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and question of payment of compensation due to mental agony does not arise.

OP prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

The case was filed on 31.08.2021.  The case was admitted on 14.09.2021.  On 26.10.2021, the complainant is present.  He files postal track report showing service upon the OP.  The notice was served upon the OP on 05.10.2021.  On 30.11.2021, OP files W/V.  Copy served.   On 11.02.022, the complainant files evidence on affidavit.  Copy served.  On 13.04.2022, the OP files questionnaire.  On 24.05.2022, the complainant files reply.  Copy served.  On 21.06.2022, OP files evidence on affidavit. Copy served. On 03.08.2022, complainant files questionnaire.  Copy served.  On 05.09.2022, OP files reply.  Copy served.  On 16.11.2022, the complainant files BNA.  The complainant prays for time.  On 10.03.2022, both parties are present and the argument of the complainant was heard, in full.  OP prays for time for filing BNA.  On 07.07.2023, the OP filed BNA.  Copy served.  On 11.08.2023, both parties are present.  Heard argument of both sides in full.  Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement. 

                                          Points for consideration :-

1. Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

Point No.1:- 

After perusal of papers and documents, it appears, that the complainant, has applied for an electric connection.  The complainant applied for a new connection for his under-construction floor.  The complainant applied at the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited.  The complainant paid Rs.5/- for purchasing application Booklet from Boalia Customer Care Centre.  Hence it appears that the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(7) of C. P. Act, 2019.

Point No:2 : 

The complainant applied for a separate meter.  The complainant’s father is the authorized signatory.  The complainant (Satadal Pandey) would reside on the 2^nd floor, and he applied for the new connection.  He has got a separate establishment on the 2^nd floor.  The officials of WBSEDCL are unwilling to give a new connection on the second floor.  If all the requirements are fulfilled by the consumer, the complainant, the OP would find no problem in effecting service connection.  The new connection would be given in the name of   Satadal Pandey.  The complainant is required to give the adequate charges.  The OP is required to make another inspection for the new connection.  It is pertinent to mention that the complainant finds no difficulty in giving way leave, separate space for installation of new meter and switch.  Third inspection was held on 22.06.2019 by the State Manager and Assistant Manager of WBSEDCL.  The application for a separate meter was rejected by the WBSEDCL.  It appears that the complainant is entitled to get a new electric connection provided all the formalities are fulfilled.  The complainant has to submit adequate fees in this regard.  The officials of WBSEDCL are deficient in providing proper service to the consumers.  As electricity is an emergency affair, the complainant cannot be deprived of getting the same.  It is the unfair trade practice adopted by officials of WBSEDCL by not providing a new electric connection.  They impose several unlawful restrictions, which are not at all desirable.  Hence the 2^nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

Point No.03 :-

The complainant resides in the same house with his father.  The complainant is going to reside on the 2^nd floor of the building in question with his wife and daughter.  He applied for a new electric connection.  The officials of WBSEDCL inspected the spot and rejected the request of a new meter for three times.  The complainant is ready to give a space for installation of a separate meter, witch etc.  The complainant is also required to provide fees, but the cause of harassment is best known to the officials of WBSEDCL.  The officials must make every arrangement so that the complainant can get the required connection.  Hence, it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.  So,  the 3^rd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand).

That the OP is directed to deliver electric connection to the complainant upon payment of adequate charges to the OP within 30 days from the date of this order.

That the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) is to be paid by the O.P. within 30 days from the date of this order. 

That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within 30 days from the date of this order.

Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost. 

That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  Sangita Paul                   

                   Member