Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The Concise fact of the case of the Complainant in few words is that the Complainant Gopal Chanda applied for electric connection against which he was issued quotation dt.12.06.18 in respect of Application No. 4002175754 to the Complainant. As per direction of the O.P .Complainant deposited total quotation amount of Rs.848/- before the office of the O.P and O.P.No1 issued money receipt No 132103408659,&128403412180 both dt.13.06.18 but O.P. did not connect the electric connection in the premises of the Complainant. On 09.10.18 Complainant filed written complaint before the O.P. but O.P. did not receive the same. Complainant sent the petition through Regd. Post but O.P. did not connect the electric connection & till today no reply was sent. Complainant submits that O.P. intentionally did not install Electric connection in the premises. The activities of the O.P. tantamount to deficiency in service for which the Complainant suffered mental pain & agony.
The cause of action for the present case arose on 12.06.2018 and on subsequent date on 13.06.2018 and it is continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for direction the O.P. to connect electricity connection in the premises of the Complainant and further direction of pass an order of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain & agony sustained by the Complainant till date due to negligence in the service by the O.P. and Rs.5000/- towards compensation for not installation of electric connection by the O.P. towards litigation cost to the Complainant by the O.P.
The O.P. contested the case by filing written version wherein they have denied most of the allegation. The positive defence case is that after depositing the quotation money by the Complainant this O.P. stated to verify the relevant documents & at the time of spot visit it was noticed by this O.P. that in the premises of the Complainant there is an existing electric connection in the name of Chabirani Chanda, W/O Nibaran Chanda Who is the mother of the Complainant being consumer ID No 400955765. The said electric connection has been disconnected on 26.02.18 due to non-payment of outstanding bill of Rs.9473/- and till date said Chabirani Chanda did not pay the said outstanding bill to the WBSEDCL and the Complainant knowing the above fact has applied for new electric connection before this O.P. which is not permissible in the eye of law. The O.P. thereafter informed the matter to the Complainant the reason for non-providing the new connection in the premises and also requested him to pay the said outstanding bill of Rs.9473/- to the WBSEDCL. O.P. submitted that the Complainant neglected to pay the same till date. Lastly, on 21.12.2018 finding no other alternative this O.P. by a letter informed the Complainant the reason for non-providing the service connection at his premises. In this regard this O.P. submitted that at the time of applying for new electric connection the Complainant submitted wrong declaration as mentioned in the WBSEDCL procedures A(2010) Annexure-A. It is crystal clear that the Complainant has suppressed the fact of the existing electric connection at his premises in his mother’s name & about the outstanding dues against the said electric connection by submitting a false declaration to the WBSEDCL OP therefore submitted that the Complainant could not get new electricity connection due to wrong or incorrect declaration. So there is no negligence in service. In case before award of new electricity connection for any premises, any legitimate arrears in respect of the old connection at the premises have to be cleared, before a new connection for the same premises is issued.
There is no cause of action against the O.P. The O.P. therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The question of fact a law involved in the dispute vis-à-vis the respective case of the parties in this case demand for ascertainment of fallowing points for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get electric connection or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
- To what other relief or reliefs the Complainant is entitled to get?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Point No.1 : The O.P. challenged the case regarding maintainability. It is admitted position that the Complainant has applied for an electric connection & depositing the quotation money by the Complainant. At the time of spot visit O.P. noticed that in the premises, there is an existing electric connection in the name of his mother Chabirani Chanda W/O Nibaran Chandra being consumer ID No 400955765. The said electric connection has been disconnected on 26.12.2018 due to non payment of outstanding bill of Rs.9473/- to the WBSEDCL, but the Complainant neglected to pay the same till date, Thus, considering everything the Commission comes to the opinion that the Complainant does not came within the purview of the C.P. Act 2019.
O.P. argued that before award of new electricity connection for any premises, any legitimate arrears in respect of old connection at premises have to be cleared, before a new connection for same premises is issued.
Having perused the pleadings of the parties and the relation between the Complainant and the O.P we are of the considered view that the Complainant case is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 2019.
Accordingly, point No 1 is not decided on behalf of the complaint.
Point No 2: The case relate to this point regarding the question as to whether the dispute by is arbitrary illegal and unjustified.
The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit. The O.P in order to discard the said allegation adduced evidence. The Complainant also filed some documents being Annexure A to D. Annexure-A is the L.R R.O. R in favour of the Complainant. Annexure –B is the sale deed of the Complainant Gopal Chandra at that time he was minor. So the Sale deed was executed in the name of Chabirani Chanda, W/O. Nibaran chanda and Chabirani Chanda is the mother of the Complainant. Annexure-B, is the quotation as per WBSEDCL dt 12.06.18. Annexure –C is the money receipt WBSEDCL dt.13.06.18Annexure-D is the application for new connection before the Superintendent of WBSEDC L from the Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that initially he applied for electricity connection in his residence before the O.P. with sale deed and khotian. After full enquiry & after satisfaction by the O.P. i.e WBSEDCL issued quotation dt.12.06.18. O.P. issued money receipt dt.13.06.18 but till today O.P. did not connect the Electric connection in the premises of the Complainant.
Ld Defence Council argued that the plea of the Complainant that there is an existing electric connection in the name of Chabirani Chanda W/O Nibaran Chanda, who is the mother of the Complainant being consumer ID No 400955765.The said electric connection has been disconnected on 26.12.18 due to non payment of outstanding bill of Rs9473/- and till date the said Chabirani Chanda did not pay the said outstanding bill to the WBSEDCL and the Complainant is well known about the above factum and has applied for new electric connection before this O.P./ WBSEDCL which is not permissible in the eye of law.
In order to ascertain the veracity of the submission of the Complainant let us take recourse of the best document in the case being the separate L.R.R.OR shown in the name of the mother of the Complainant i.e Chabirani Chanda. It stands proofed that the mother of the Complainant residents in the separate premises.
Ld Lawyer for the Complainant could not advance any argument supporting any documentary evidence that they are residing in different premises.
Complainant did not challenge the said bill of Rs.9473/- when it was outstanding. The connection was disconnected 26.02.18 due to non payment of outstanding bill and ill date Chabirani Chanda did not pay the previous bill to the WBSEDCL. There is also nothing to show that the Complainant was eager to pay the outstanding bill.
By annexure A being the sale deed where it is crystal clear that when the Complainant purchased the property he was minor. So in favour of his mother Chabirani Chanda purchased the property. According to LRROR the mother of the Complainant & the Complainant residents in same Dag no because in support of his claim Complainant could not give any documentary evidence.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. referred to a decision reported in 2016 CPJ 377N.C. wherein it was held that before award of new electricity connection for any premises, any legitimate arrears in respect of old connection for same premises is issued. In so far as the question of unjust the Ld Advocate for the O.P. referred to a unreported decision of civil Appeal no 6565 of 2008 in arising out of SLP© No 14003 of 200/- is applicable in as much as in the said decision, the dispute was relating to fresh electricity connection to the premises for supply of Electricity The case law is relied on the ground that it was held that it is the duty of the purchase of premises to satisfy the WBSEDCL that there are no electricity dues before purchasing/ occupying a premises.
The Ld Advocate for the O.P. referred to another decision of in civil appeal no 5759 of 2009 of Supreme Court of India where it is clearly stated that the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the Complainant. The burden of proving the deficiency n service is upon the person who alleges it without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. Here in this case the Complainant has to prove that he and his mother have different record of Right in different Dag number. But Complainant has not given any documentary evidence in this regard.
But the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant did not cite any case reference and did not adduce any evidence.
After perusing the entire case record and the documents of both the parties that the Complainant did not file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Although the mother of the Complainant consumed electricity but did not pay the electric bill in due time. So the accumulation of huge amount of electric bill since 26.02.18 would no doubt be burdensome for the mother of the Complainant to pay it at a time.
Accordingly the OP shall not give the connection to the Complainant until the outstanding due amount will be paid by his mother. So the new connection has not been provided by this O.P. The mother of the Complainant did not show any record of rights in favour of her that she resides indifferent place.
In the light of the discussion made here in above and having assessed the evidence of both the parties the commission comes to the finding that the disputed bill has not been paid by the mother of the Complainant. Accordingly, point NO 2 is answered against the Complainant.
Points 3 & Points No 4:- Previously this Commission have ascertained that there is no new electricity connection until any legitimate arrears in respect of old connection at premises have to be cleared. The O.P acted lawfully by applying the provisions of the Electricity Act and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. In the result both the point 3 and 4 are answered in negative and are decided against the Complainant .
Consequently, the case of the Complainant fails on contest.
Hence it is
Ordered
That the Complainant case No 86/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered post with A/D forthwith, free of cost .
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
