SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            Sum and substance of the complaint case is that the complainant filed an application  before the OP Board for new domestic  connection for his residential premises in Plot no. 497  village Padumbasan under Word no 12 of Tamluk Municipality being application No. 2002163501. The OP gave quotation for Rs. 1014/- dated 01.04.2016 and complainant deposited the quotation money of Rs 400/- + 614/-on 05.04.2016 being consumer ID No 202029028.  After lapse of even one month the OP did not effect electric connection in the residence of the complainant when she gave reminder for the same.  Again the complainant requested the OP for execution of the electric connection by a letter dated 20.092017 but still then the OP did not effect the electric connection in her premises.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

            The OP Electricity Distribution Co. appeared and contested the case by filing written version.  The OP prayed for dismissal of the case as non maintainable under various provisions of law. They also denied all the material allegations made in the complaint petition.

The specific case of the OP no.1 is that the complainant lives in the said premises with her husband Navendu Bikash Nayek in whose name there is an existing electric connection and meter being Consumer ID No. 201230484.  The OP asserts that in order to split the load of the meter the complainant has intentionally applied for new connection suppressing the existence of electric connection in the premises. This fact came to the notice of the staff of the OP while inspecting the premises of the complainant for the purpose of providing electric connection.  As a result, the OP informed the complainant that they cannot provide electric connection in her premises.  Subsequently the complainant again applied on 20.09.2017 by procuring a vague holding No. In reply thereto, the OP informed the complainant that her application for new connection is considered and cancelled and she may take refund of her quotation money.

             Under such circumstances, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint petition with costs.

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the complaint case is maintainable and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all  the documents filed by both the parties, the affidavit in chief, the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the respective parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant. Considered.

            Admittedly there is an electric connection in the premises of the complainant in the name of her husband. Admittedly the complainant applied for a separate electric connection from the OP in the said premises and for that she paid Rs. 1014/-  on 05.04.2016 as per quotation of the OP but the OP did not provide the electric connection  on the ground that in the premises of the complainant situated in Word No. 12 of village Padumbasan, PO and PS Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur has already  one domestic service connection in the name of Nabendu Bikash Nayek, husband of the complainant being Customer ID ;No. 20130484. Grievance of the OP is that the complainant and her husband suppressing said fact of existence of the electric connection in said premises applied for another connection.

           Ld. advocate for the OP argued that according to the provision of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, the OP cannot provide the complainant another connection in the single premises.  Hence, the OP rejected the application of the complainant.

           We have perused the examination-in-chief on affidavit filed by the complainant and the cross-examination thereto. It was specially questioned to the complainant whether she has separate source of income and whether the complainant has any landed property and how she had acquire the same; what does the husband of the complainant do ; where does he live. The  most important question is question no. 10 that whether the complainant lives jointly with her husband or live in separate mess from her husband. The complainant answered to that question “Yes.” Also it was questioned  to her whether she had any electric connection in her premises. The complainant answered “No”. She was asked whether her husband has any electric connection in the same house. The complainant answered that her husband has electric connection in separate apartment in said building. But the complainant could not prove the same by showing cogent evidence.

           We have carefully perused all the documents filed by the complainant and the OP and came to the conclusion that where there is an electric connection in the name of the  complainant’s husband and when it is not proved that the complainant and her husband live in separate holding, there is no fault on the part of the OP who rejected the application of the complainant praying for electric connection.  Only when the complainant could show the OP that she is living separately from her husband  or they have got any order of divorce from any court of law for breaking their marital status and if the complainant could show  that there had been any partition  in the holding of the premises and name of the complainant has been mutated for the separate holding, only then the complainant could get electric connection  from the OP in said holding. But at this stage there is no such cogent reason for directing the OP to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant.

As a result the case fails.

Both the issues are answered accordingly.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/578 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.

Parties do bear their respective costs.

The complainant is at liberty to act according to the body of the judgment and in that event the OP shall provide her the new Electric connection in her premises.

The complainant is at liberty to pray for refund of the quotation money she deposited with the OP. In that event the OP should return the quotation money within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get 9% interest on the said amount till realization of the same.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.