Date: 11-09-2015

Sri Kamal De, President

FINAL ORDER

The instant case relates to an application filed by one Mr. Nitai Manna for electric connection to his residence situated on R.S. Plot No. 1538 of Mouza Padumbasan under the Tamluk Municipality.

The case of the Complainant, in short, is that he is a resident of Purba Medinipur district.  The Complainant has a pucca building situated on R.S. Plot No. 1538 under Mouza Padumbasan.  He inherited the same from his father being Holding No. 100.  The Complainant made an application for new domestic electric connection to the OP in the said residential house.  On 24-05-2014, the OP issued quotation and accordingly, in terms of said quotation, the Complainant deposited Rs. 339/- and Rs. 400/- to the OP on 12-06-2014.  However, the OP did not give the said electric connection to the Complainant till 29-12-2014.  So, he gave a lawyer’s notice to the OP on 30-12-2014 with a request to give electric connection to the Complainant, but the OP failed and neglected to give electric connection to the Complainant.  The Complainant is suffering from mental agony, hence the case.

OP has filed written version and contested the case contending inter alia that the statements made in Paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint are matters of record and stand to strict proof thereof. 

The statements made in Paragraph No. 6 of the petition of complaint is denied by the OP terming the same as false and baseless.  It is denied that the OP did not give electric connection to the Complainant till 29-12-2014 or the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant gave letter on 30-12-2014, requesting him to give electric connection to the Complainant or the Complainant suffers from mental agony. 

It is stated by the OP that WBSEDCL ordered M/s Arya Electricals vide Memo No. TCCC/LOI/14-15/18/404 dated 21-06-2014 to effect service connection to the Complainant.  M/s Arya Electricals, the enlisted contractor accordingly went to effect service connection to the residence of the Complainant, but could not do so due to spot objection from local people, presumably some land owners alleging that the service connection would encroach their land. 

The OP also visited the spot physically when it was found that the service cable would encroach the private land of one Mr. Gurupada Manna, since deceased, and presently the land belongs to his legal heirs.  On scrutiny of official record, it also revealed that the Complainant had himself signed the prescribed form (way leave permission) suppressing the fact that the line needs to encroach another person’s private land. 

Accordingly, the WBSEDCL vide its Memo No. TCCC/1309 dated 06-01-2015, requested the Complainant to provide fresh way leave or no objection certificate and submit the same to the Tamluk Customer Care Centre, but till date no fresh way leave or no objection certificate has been submitted by the Complainant.

This OP denies any deficiency of service on the part of the WBSEDCL, as alleged by the Complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the case.

The moot question that revolves round the present case is whether the Complainant is entitled to get electric connection at his residence, or not?

Decision with reasons

We have gone through the documents filed from the side of the Complainant, viz., photocopies of application receipt, quotation, money receipt, property tax receipt, legal notice.  We have also considered the pleadings of the parties and also carefully gone through other materials on record.

It appears from the documents on record that the Complainant made an application before the OP for new domestic electric connection to his dwelling house. The Complainant also deposited the required amount with the OP on 12-06-2014 for the said new connection.  It has been alleged from the side of the OP that their authorized contractor went to the residence of the Complainant to effect service connection, but could not do so due to stiff resistance from local people, presumably the neighbouring land owners apprehending encroachment of their lands.

We are, however, afraid that the OP has not come up with any cogent documentary proof/report from the enquiry officer to show that the proposed electric line would encroach into the private land of one Sri Gurupada Manna, since deceased, or the authorized contractor of the OP encountered any resistance from the legal heirs of said Lt. Gurupada Manna.  Notwithstanding vide its letter dated 06-01-2015, the OP drew the attention of the Complainant about way leave problem, a glance through the same shows that it remains short of any specifics.  There is no whisper anywhere in the said letter as regards objection from the side of legal heirs of Lt. Gurupada Manna, as alleged by the OP.  Thus, we fail to understand, wherefrom Gurupada Manna or his legal heirs came into the picture.  That apart, let us not forget that mere claim is not suffice; it needs to be corroborated with documentary proof, which is very much missing in this case.  Accordingly, this  alibi  of the OP in this regard is not at all tenable.

It, however, appears that two Advocates served notices upon the OP on behalf of their clients, namely, Sri Indrajit Manna, s/o Basudev Manna and another Mrs. Tulsi Bhowmik, w/o Sudarshan Bhowmic stating that they are the co-owners of R.S. Plot Nos. 1069/1147 and 1069/1147, respectively, of Mouza Padumbasan and also attached copies of parcha in support of their claim. 

Noteworthy here is the fact that the Complainant intends to take service connection to R.S. Plot No. 1538 of Mouza Padumbasan under the Tamluk Municipality, which is a separate plot.  Be that as it may, it has not been denied that the Complainant is not in possession of the said Plot.  Moreover, admittedly, said Indrajit Manna and Tulsi Manna are the co-owners of said undivided plot of land.

We have also gone through the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 together with electricity code, issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and are of considered opinion that the onus of effecting new electric service connection squarely rests with the service provider subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions as provided u/s 53 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It appears that the Complainant has deposited the requisite amount to the OP on 12-06-2014 for said new electric connection.  Even if for argument’s sake we presume that Indrajit Manna and Tulsi Bhowmik are co-owners of residential plot, they have significantly not disputed the possession or occupation or ownership of the Complainant in respect of Plot No. 1538 of Mouza Padumbasan.  It is a truism of law that a co-owner or co-sharer has equal right over every inch of the undivided property.  The objection, as raised by them is, thus, not at all acceptable to us.

On the other hand, in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003, the OP is duty-bound to effect service connection to the Complainant within one month from the date of application, which it unfortunately did not do.  It is always desirable that while carrying out spot inspection to figure out the feasibility of effecting service connection to the intended place, the service provider would attach due importance to the task at hand.  It appears from the letter dated 02-06-2011 of the OP to the Complainant that they promised to carry out inspection of the premises in question within 7/15 days from the date of application.  The OP has not placed any adverse report from the side of the Inspector who inspected the premises of the Complainant.  After accepting requisite money from a prospective customer, they cannot shrug off their responsibility towards the latter at the drop of a hat.  The law adequately empowers the OP to take legal action against obstructers.  However, visibly the OP did nothing against the objectors.  The conduct of the OP, without any iota of doubt, falls vastly short of standard of professionalism expected of a public utility service provider. 

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service as defined u/s 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the C.C. No. 50/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.  The OP is directed to effect service connection to the residential house of the Complainant, with police help if the need be, within 40 days from the date of this order and also to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-, respectively to the Complainant.  In case the OP neglects/fails to comply with this order, the Complainant may execute this order in accordance with law in which case, the OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.