Date of filing: 08.12.2016                                                                          Date of disposal:30.10.2017

Complainant: Gautam Chattopadhyay, S/o. Shri Madan Mohan Chattopadhyay, resident of

                          Vill.-Kansra (West), P.O.-Surekalna (Near Kalna-Kansra High School), P.S.-

                          Jamalpur, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713408.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: The Station Manager, Jamalpur Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL, having its

                              office at P.O.-Jamalpur, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713408.

Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).

    Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

               Hon’ble Member:  Miss Nivedita Ghosh.

Appeared for the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.

JUDGEMENT

This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to provide the electricity connection at the premises of the complainant and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

The complainant’s short case is that for taking a new electric connection in his newly constructed building contacted with the O.P. in the month of November, 2013.  The complainant submitted the written application before the O.P. and on the basis of such application the O.P. investigate the proposed area on 16.12.2013.  Thereafter, the O.P. issued the quotation vide Memo No.5000560232/Quot/03 dated 18.12.2013.  As per quotation the complainant deposited the quotation money of Rs.1,775/- to the O.P. on 22.12.2013.

The complainant further stated that after the date of making payment of quotation amount the complainant several times requested the O.P. for giving electric line in his premises and on each and every occasion the O.P. assured the complainant that they will give the electricity within a short period but till 06.06.2016 the O.P. No.1 did not take any steps to that regard. On 6.6.2016 the complainant submitted a written representation before the Divisional Manager of the O.P. by requesting to provide electricity to him but there is no fruitful result.  The complainant further submit that he is a bonafide customer of the O.P. and he never done any act detrimental to the interest of the O.P.  Inspite of that the O.P. neither effect the electric connection in the premises nor have taken any step to the regard.  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief as noted above.

The O.P. contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations of the complainant.  The O.P. submits that the complainant applied for getting a new service connection in a premises at Village Kansra (West), P.O.-Surekalna, P.S.-Jamalpur, Dist.-Burdwan in a prescribed form of WBSEDCL.  Subsequently a quotation was issued.  The O.P. also stated that when the men of the O.P. went to the said premises to effect the proposed connection it was detected that the premises was already electrified and there is existing a service connection having Consumer ID No.517064284 standing in the name of Bandana Chatterjee in the self same premises.  Accordingly, the complainant was asked to produce deeds/documents showing his separate ownership and possession but the complainant failed to produce the same and for which the proposed connection could not be effected.

The O.P. further stated that in view of Clause 14 of the Regulation 55 of WBERC of any applicant/intending consumer/consumer submits any application for new connection with the intention of splitting load to obtain that benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong/in accurate/ false statements his application would be liable to be rejected under the provisions of the Act, or the Regulations made there under and 25% of payments/deposits it already made  by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of these Regulations, shall be forfeited by the Distribution Licenses before the rest charges is refunded to him and it will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the loan and any dispute in this regard.  Hence, this case and prayer is made for dismissal of the instant case with cost.

DECISION WITH REASON

To prove this case the complainant adopted his complaint petition as evidence.  The O.P. did not file any question and barking upon the written version of the O.P. supported by affidavit.  The case was heard from both sides who made an elaborate argument.  The O.P. filed the photocopy of Notification/Regulation No.53 and also an electricity bill in the name of Bandana Chatterjee in the said premises.  In the written version the O.P. clearly stated that as per the application of getting new connection in the premises at Village Kansra (West), P.O.-Surekalna, P.S.-Jamalpur, Dist.-Burdwan, a quotation was issued in the name of the complainant and subsequently quotational amount was received.  When the men of the O.P. went to the said premises to effect the connection it was found that there is already electricity in the said premises with service connection Consumer ID No.517064284 in the name of Bandana Chatterjee.  The copy of electricity  for the month of September to November, 2017 billing amount of Rs.3,038/-, goes to show that the said Bandana Chatterjee is paying her electricity bill and last payment made by her on 7.9.2017 amounting to Rs.3,050/-.  So, it is proved that there is an electricity in the said premises in the name of  one Bandana Chatterjee and on being asked the complainant  could not filed any document nor the complainant supplied any document to this Forum regarding his separate ownership and possession in the said premises for getting new electricity connection in his name.  Therefore, the O.P. cannot be blamed as negligent or deficient in service in giving the electric connection to an applicant as alleged by the complainant.  We have also gone through the Notification/ Regulation No.53 dated 2.4.2013 specially point No.13 & 14 and it is onus upon the applicant to prove his case to get  new connection.  It is not for purpose of splitting the load.  The complainant was asked to produce the deed and document for his separate ownership and possession but he could not even he did not produce such document before this Forum to prove the negligence or deficient in service of the O.P. in getting electricity connection as alleged.  Therefore, we do not find any merit to allow the prayer of the complainant.   Accordingly, the case fails.  Court fees paid is correct.  Hence, it is

Ordered

that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost. 

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

                     Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                      President       

                                                                                                                  D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                   Jayanti Maitra (Ray)                   

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

              (Nivedita Ghosh)                                                              (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)

                    Member                                                                            Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                          D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan