S.S. Ali

Complainants’ case, in brief, is that they applied for domestic service connection to their premises after depositing earnest money with the OP on 23-03-2011.  After getting requisite money from the complainants although the men of OP started installation work to draw electric connection to the premises of the complainants, with an ulterior motive some persons viz Prasanta Maity, Dibakar Maity and Nisikanta Maity raised strong objection to prevent drawal of such connection to the premises of the complainants.  Therefore, the complainants moved M.P. Case No. 536/2011 u/s 144(2) before the ld. S.D.E.M., 2^nd Court, Tamluk against the aforesaid obstructers whereupon the ld. Court, on the basis of report of I/C, and BL&LRO, Kolaghat drawn up proceedings against the said obstructers.  Although the said obstructers moved a revision petition against such order of the ld. SDEM, before the ld. District Judge, the latter rejected the same.  It is stated by the complainants that despite being properly informed about such orders of ld. Courts, the OP did not take any initiative to effect service connection to their premises, hence the case.

In support of their contention, the complainants filed some documents viz copy of Criminal Revision No. 1454/2012 filed before the ld. Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur and judgment thereof, one Stay Petition, papers related to M.P. Case no. 536/11 filed before the ld. SDEM, 2^nd Court, Tamluk, L.R. copy, Money Receipts issued by OP, copy of complaints to OP and O.C. Kolaghat Beat House, Purba Medinipur etc.

On being served notice, the OP appeared before this forum, filed their written version and WNA and took a positive part during the course of argument.  By their written version, the OPs inter alia denied all the material allegations of the complainants.  Further, they also raised strong objection about the maintainability of instant case on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.   It is stated by the OP that they are always ready to provide electric connection to the complainants.  However, due to strong objection raised by Prasanta Maity and others, their authorized contractor could not effect such connection.  Denying any laches on their part, the OP prayed for dismissal of this case against them.

Points for consideration

We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record including the written version, WNA etc. and also heard the submission of ld. lawyers of both sides. To arrive at a decision we frame the following issues.

1. Whether the case suffers from defect of parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP, as alleged by the complainants?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief, as sought for by them?

Decisions with reasons

Point No. 1:

Although OP has strongly disputed maintainability of the instant case on the ground of non-joinder of party, they did not elaborate how Prasanta Maity & others – who resisted their men to effect service connection to the premises of the complainants – are necessary party to the case.  In our considered view, mere resistance by someone does not make one necessary party to a case in anyway.  On one hand OP has not brought on record any cogent document to establish the locus-standi of Prasanta Maity & others or whether they have any legitimate right to raise objection against drawl of service connection to the plots of land in question and on the other it is evident from the various orders passed by different competent courts of law that the objectors had no legitimate right to raise such objection.In so far as it is the cardinal principle of law that a party who makes an allegation is duty bound to prove the same, in absence of any convincing evidence to drive home such contention on the part of the OPs, we are constrained to reject OPsobjection  in this regard.

This point, thus, goes in favour of the complainants.

Point nos. 2 & 3:

Both these points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion.

While OP’s defense is built around the resistance of one Prasanta Maity & others, we do not find such contention at all convincing on the following grounds –

First,   under the Indian Electricity Act, it is the responsibility of the OP to verify the feasibility of giving service connection to an applicant before issuing quotation in his favour.  It is stated by the complainant that OP directed them to deposit earnest money after conducting spot enquiry, which has not been denied by the OP.  Thereafter, the objection of OP at this stage is not tenable.

Second, It transpires from the materials on record that while ld. SEDM, Tamluk directed to draw proceedings against the objectors viz Prasanta Maity & others, the ld. Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur rejected the revision petition filed by Prasanta Maity & others against the order of the ld. SDEM, Tamluk.  It sufficiently proves that there was no force in the resistance so raised by the above-mentioned objectors. 

Third, there is nothing on record to show that the objectors has obtained any stay order/decree from any competent Court of Law from effecting service connections to the plots in question.

In terms of sec. 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the duty of every distribution licensee to supply electricity on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises within one month from the receipt of application to that effect.  In the instant case the complainants applied before the OP for effecting service connection to their premises on 15-03-2011 and also submitted earnest money on 23-03-2011, yet the OP has not effected such connection till date.  There is nothing on record to suggest that the OP lodged any complaint with the police authority against Prasanta Maity & others for obstructing public servants to carry out their official duty.

Fourthly, it is the duty of the service provider to provide service to their consumers after receiving money for the said service and they cannot deny the same on any ground whatsoever.

As such, the OP after getting the order from the Ld. District Judge, Purba Medinipur, should have given the domestic electric connection in the house of the complainants. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Thus, both the points no. 2 and 3 are disposed of in favour of the complainants.

We, thus, hold that the complainants are entitled to get service connection of electricity at their premises along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

          that the instant case being no. CC-05 of 2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to effect the service connection to the premises of plot no. as mentioned in the schedule of the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of this order and to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants, i.d. complainants are at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case OP will have to pay fine of Rs.100/- per diem to the complainants from the date of this order till compliance of the order in full satisfaction.

                                             S.S. Ali                                                A.K. Bhattacharyya

                                             Member                                               President