Prepared By: Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, Member(L)

Corrected By: Sri Kamal De, President

                   The complainant Sri Tarendra Nath Khaskil of Village Kalikakindu under P.S Mahisadal, filed the instant case against The Station Manager Mahisadal Customer Care Center of WBSEDCL as the Opposite Party did not provide the new electric connection in the scheduled property of the complainant. The complainant made an application to WBSEDCL, who after verification raised quotation of RS 848/- which was paid by the complainant. He further states that being a bona-fide consumer he has every right to get electric connection as prayed before the op, who has the duty to make connection to the house of the complainant who paid all necessary fees for obtaining the same. The complainant relied upon the Deed of Gift, L.R Khatian, and Tax Bill, Money Receipt issued by the OP, and Letter dated 16/07/2015 which he filed along with the complaint petition.

                   The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed his WV and also his WNA. On 1/10/15 an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure was filed by Sachinandan Khaskil and 4 others, the complainant filed their written objection. The said petition u/o1 rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure was rejected on 13/10/2015 with an observation that “we think that the complainant has not sought for any relief against the petitioner u/o1 rule 10 CPC, and it is the sole duty of the distribution licensee to decide through which way the electric connection is to be effected”.

                   We have gone through all the documents filed by the parties. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party contends that as objection was raised by one Sachinandan Khaskil by two applications dated 26/06/15 and 12/09/15 in providing new service connection to the complainant and 5 others because of way leave problem.

                    The OP, vide memo no-MCCC/T-15/581 dated 7/7/15 asked the complainant to submit and arrange the required way leave to effect the Service Connection without obstruction. The complainant in his written objection against the petition u/o 1 rule 10 has stated that, in the eastern side of the R.S plot no 448,L.R. 467 there is a village pathway running North to south through electric connection can be drawn to the house of the complainant.

                   Moreover the Judgment cited by and relied upon by the complainant in 2012(3)CLJ Cal, the Hon’ble court observed u/s 43(1) and 43(3), that it is mandatory on the part of the licensee to supply electricity to any premises within the area of his operation, failure to supply electricity will entail penal consequence and licensee cannot avoid his statutory duty on the ground that applicant failed to provide way-leave in this case.

                   As such we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is duty bound as per law to provide electricity to the complainant herein and take all necessary steps to ensure that electricity is effected as under Part-VIII of the Electricity Act 2003 read with Rule 3 of the Works of license Rules 2006 to ensure that electric supply is effected, which is an ingredient to Right to Life of an individual.

                   Hence,                   

ORDERED

                That the instant case being no. CC/72/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The Opposite Party is directed to give electric service connection to the house of the complainant, if necessary with police help, within 40 days from the date of passing of this order, together with litigation cost of Rs 5000/- to the complainant failing which, the OP shall have to pay fine of Rs.150/- per diem till compliance, to the complainant. For non-compliance of the order, the complainant is at liberty to put this order into execution as mandated under the C.P. Act.