The instant appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘ ) is at the behest of the Complainant to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur ( for  short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No.101/2016.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Appellant Under Section 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the Opposite Party/Respondent to install electric connection with new meter in the Premises of Appellant within 15 days from the date of order, failing which a penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day shall be imposed under Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 till the date of providing new electric connection, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.

          The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that she along with her husband have jointly purchased one property at Vill+ P.O.- Burul, P.S.- Nodakhali, Dist- South 24 Parganas for their weekend rest and being owner, they applied for new electric connection for use and enjoyment.  On 05.05.2015 the respondent raised quotation for Rs.446/-.  Accordingly, on 08.05.2015 the appellants have paid/deposited two receipts for Rs.246/- for security deposit and Rs.2,00/- for service connection charge.  However, after receipt of the said amount, the respondent did not perform his duty for which the husband of the complainant/appellant by a letter dated 30.06.2016 requested the respondent to inform the work status for new electric connection and the same was received by the respondent on 04.07.2016 but did not reply.  On 01.08.2016 the appellant through her advocate sent a legal notice and the said notice has been received by the respondent on 03.08.2016.  On 04.08.2016 at about 1:40 P.M. the husband of the complainant received one call from mobile number 8017517424 representing himself as Inspector of the contractor of respondent and demanded a sum of Rs.9,000/- for providing the pole, which is required for installation of new meter.  On 12.08.2016 the husband of the complainant Mr. Niranjan Lahiri (who is an Advocate in profession) sent a notice to the respondent and requested the respondent to investigate the delay and also the reason of demand of Rs.9,000/- on account of pole with a request to provide new meter/connection and the said letter was duly received by respondent on 16.08.2016 but still it remain unheeded.  Finding no other alternative, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including a direction upon OP/respondent to provide installation of new electric connection, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- etc.

          The Respondent being Opposite Party by filing a written version have stated that the enlisted contractor M/s. Techno Electric inspected the place for installing service connection but as there was no minimum infrastructure the service connection could not be effected.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the Opposite Party i.e. the Station Manager, Budge Budge CCC of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) as indicated above. After passing of the order on 23.10.2017, the respondent installed new meter on 07.11.2017.  However, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- only awarded by the Ld. District Forum for prolonged harassment of two and half years, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not consider the harassment and expenditure of the complainant to follow up the matter for connection of electricity at her premises and she had to depute persons to visit the office of respondent without any result which compelled to lodge the complaint.  He has further submitted that in accordance with Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, the Ld. District Forum should have imposed penalty for not only deficiency in services but also for unfair trade practice.  He has also submitted that the Ld. District Forum has failed to consider how the OP/respondent has misused his post/chair at the cost of harassment of complainant and financial loss of public exchequer.  In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has referred a decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in 2015 (1) CHN (Cal) 556 [WBSEDCL – Vs. – Sujit Kumar Khatua].

          Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that the premises in question was inspected by enlisted contractor, M/s. Techno Electric, who in turn reported about non-completion of minimal infrastructure and even after request, the complainant did not inform about completion of infrastructure as was necessary for getting new connection.  He has further contended that the impugned judgement/final order was received on 31.01.2017 and immediately the said connection was effected on 06.11.2017 and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

          I have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

          Undisputedly, the appellant and her husband Sri Niranjan Lahiri (an Advocate in profession) who have been ordinarily residing at Premises No.10/38F, Charu Avenue, Kolkata – 700033 have jointly purchased the property at Vill + P.O. Burul, P.S.- Nodakhali, Dist- South 24 Parganas for their weekend rest being senior citizen and being joint owners of the premises, they had applied for new electric connection.  On 05.05.2015 the respondent raised a quotation of Rs.246/- for security deposit and Rs.200/- for service connection charge.  In compliance with the same, the appellant has deposited the money and obtained money receipt on 08.05.2015 to that effect.

          The evidence on record clearly suggests that the respondent has caused unnecessary delay in providing electric connection and ultimately after a long two and half years from the date of payment of quotation amount, the service connection was effected and that too pursuant to the order passed by the Ld. District Forum on 23.11.2017 although as per Section 43(3) of the Act, the respondent was under obligation to provide electric connection within 30 days otherwise liable to be penalty which may extend to Rs.1000/- for each day of default.

          The provisions of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 casts an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to the premises when an application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Section 43(1) enjoins upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises, as the case may be within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.  Section 43(3) of the said Act provides that if a distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within a period of one month of making such application by the owner or occupier or where such supply requires extension of distribution mains or commissioning of new sub-station to supply electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period or as may be specified by the appropriate Commission.  If there is a violation of the provisions of Section 43(1), the distribution licensee shall be liable to pay a penalty which may extend of Rs.1,000/- for each day of default. 

      In this regard, it may be pertinent to record that an adjudication officer appointed by the appropriate Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 143 of the Electricity Act has the necessary jurisdiction to determine the quantum of penalty payable by a distribution licensee for violation of the provision of Section 43 of the Act i.e. failure and neglect to supply electricity to a consumer within the period specified in its Section 43 of the Act.

        It is quite apparent that on the basis of application of appellant, a quotation was floated on 05.05.2015 and in compliance with the said quotation, the appellant has deposited the amount of installation charges and connection charges of Rs.446/-.  However, the respondent sit tight over the matter and did not take any action for installation of electricity.  A serious allegation has been made by the appellant regarding demand/claim of inspector or contractor of respondent of Rs.9,000/- for providing the pole.  Surprisingly enough, no such amount was ever claimed by the respondent.  If there was really any lack of infrastructure for providing the new connection, after inspection, the quotation dated 05.05.2015 should have a reflection to that effect.

       The entire episode clearly demonstrate that the respondent/OP i.e. the Station Manager, Budge Budge CCC of WBSEDCL was directly involved with the corrupt practice of the contractor by giving him indulgence for illegal act otherwise the Station Manager would have enquired the allegations made by the appellant through their letter dated 12.08.2016.  The respondent by sending a letter given a threat to the appellant for starting a suit for defamation but did not take any step whatsoever.  In this regard, it would be pertinent to record that in a question on behalf of complainant to the OP/respondent as to – “After filing the complaint case, the complainant received a letter dated 31.08.2016 wherein you with threat stated that why you shall not claim Rs.20,00,000/- for defamation.  Did you file such defamation case?  If so, please give the details” to which it was replied – “Record will speak”.  In another question – “Did you investigate the grievance of the complainant as stated in letter dated 12.08.2016 in respect of demand of Rs.9,000/- by the man of the contractor of you?  If yes, please furnish the documents” to which it was replied – “Irrelevant question”.  Therefore, it becomes quite clear that the respondent has made all attempt to suppress the truth and he tried his level best to save the contractor and as such a doubt creeps in the mind of this Commission as to whether the person holding the post of the Station Manager is befitting for holding that post?  I leave this question for adjudication by the competent authority.

         In any case, an officer has no authority to violate the legislative command.  In the instant case, the respondent should have given a reply within one month i.e. from 08.05.2015 stating the reason for inability to give service connection but the respondent has shown masterly inactivity in complying with the mandatory provision to facilitate the electric connection in the premises of the appellant.  So, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed – “We fail to realise what is the incomplete construction required for completion for service connection”.  Therefore, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in directing the OP/respondent to install electricity within 15 days and surprisingly enough within 7 days from the date of receipt of order, the respondent has complied with the same without preferring an appeal, perhaps, as there was an order that in case of failure a penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day shall be imposed.

        Evidently, the respondent has made a delay of about two and half years in providing electric connection in the house of appellant which in turn causes serious harassment and mental agony of the appellant for which they are entitled to compensation.  The Ld. District Forum has awarded only Rs.5,000/- which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.  Therefore, it has to be seen whether the amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum is commensurate to the loss suffered by the appellant.  For proper appreciation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act which runs as follows –

          “14. Finding of the District Forum. – (1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complaint against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely :

...........

          (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party”.

          The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.  Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled.  There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury.  There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.

            Needless to say, the assessment of compensation depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  In the case before hand, time and again the appellant through the Ld. Advocate issued notices upon the respondent but could not change the complexion and the respondent was sitting tight over the matter till the direction given by the Ld. District Forum and within this long period, the appellant had been deprived from enjoying the electricity and the weekend being senior citizen.

        In the case of WBSEDCL – Vs. –Sujit Kumar Khatua (supra) the Ld. District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.500/- for inordinate delay in giving electric connection.  Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum, an appeal was preferred in this Commission and in disposing of the appeal, it was held that complainant is entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.30,000/-.  The Hon’ble High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution did not interfere with the order passed by this Commission in appeal.

       In the instant case, the respondent has shown highhandedness, carelessness and stubborn attitude and did not bother to violate the legislative mandate to give connection within 30 days and in this regard, even legal notices and threaten of litigation could not alter the situation.  In a decision reported in (1994) 1 CPR 569 (Lucknow Development Authority – Vs. – M.K. Gupta) the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the authority to fix the responsibility of the officers who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the appellant within a period of six months from receipt of a copy of this order is produced or served on it and the Court further ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Commission for mental harassment shall be recovered for such officers proportionately from their salary.

        Considering the entire facts and circumstances and after giving thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the parties, it appears to me that the loss suffered by the appellant for depriving of enjoyment of electricity which is now a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and such a loss of liberty cannot be compensated by money.  However, taking into consideration of the provisions of the law as embodied in Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, I think when the appellant/complainant has suffered for long two and half years for getting electricity after a legal battle certainly, considering the loss suffered by her, the Ld. District Forum should have awarded a compensation at least of Rs.50,000/-.  Therefore, I modify the order of compensation to the effect that instead of Rs.5,000/-, the appellant/complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  So far as litigation cost is considered, the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Forum is on the lower side but as the matter has not been highlighted in the appeal, I do not like to disturb that part of order.

          In view of the above, the impugned judgement and final order is modified to the extent that the appellant/complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.  The other part of the order passed by the Ld. District Forum is maintained. 

       The Chairman/Managing Director of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited is directed to fix the responsibility of the officer/employees concerned who was engaged for service connection in the house of  appellant/complainant in between 08.05.2015 and 14.09.2016 (the date of filing complaint) and to recover the entire amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the officers/staff (who were responsible for causing harassment of the appellant/complainant) from their salaries within three months from the date of communication of the order and to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant/complainant within 30 days from date otherwise the amount shall carry interest at per prevalent bank interest i.e. @8% p.a. till its realisation.

          With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Chairman/Managing Director, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited through speed post for information and compliance.

          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.