The petitioner, Satyanarayan Pal, has approached the Forum with the allegation that on 18.07.2007 he deposited a sum of Rs. 835/- with the office of the O.P. ( W.B.S.E.D.C.L.), AIHO Electric Supply, Habibpur, vide Receipt No. OR/U/06-07/092935 dt. 18.07.2007 and OR/U/06-07/092934 dt. 18.07.2007. The O.P. did not provide any electricity at the premises of the complainant inspite of aforesaid deposit. The complainant made several requests but the O.P. showed reluctancy for providing electric connection. Hence this case with a prayer for providing electric connection at his premises, litigation cost of Rs. 500/- and other consequential reliefs.

                                                                                      

                                                                                                                             O.P. No.1 has filed the written version on behalf of all O.P.s. They have denied all material allegations. They also urged that the case is not maintainable because the petitioner is not a consumer under Electricity Act. Positive case of the O.P. is that on 12.09.2007, their staff went to the premises of the petitioner for effecting the connection but it was not possible because of resistance caused by one Jagadish Murmu. With this they have prayed for dismissal of the case.

                  

The following points emerge for consideration:-

i)                   Whether the petitioner is a ‘Consumer’ under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not ?

ii)                 Whether there is any deficiency on the part of O.P.s to provide electric connection ?

iii)              Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief ?

 

          Point No. 1

 

          At the very outset of argument, the ld.lawyer for the O.P. by drawing our attention to Sec. 2 (15) of Electricity Act has submitted that the petitioner is not the consumer falling under the Electricity Act and as such the case is not maintainable. In this case we should not omit to take in our ken that the petitioner has approached the Forum under the Provisions of C.P. Act and the ‘Consumer’ has been defined in Sec. 2 (1) (d) U/s 2 (1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, a person is a consumer who avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised. Hence, in the instant case from Exbt.3,4 and 5 we find that on the basis of quotation given by O.P.s, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 835/- for his domestic connection and on that basis Service Connection No. 9468 /D was allotted to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is yet to get electric connection in his premises. It is a trite law under the provision of C.P. Act that an applicant for electric connection is a consumer and this view rests with the decision reported in 1993 (2) CPR 351. In the above circumstances we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the ld.lawyer for the O.P. The petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case can very well approach the Forum under C.P. Act and as such on the strength of the provision of Sec. 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, the petitioner cannot be ousted from this case.

 

          The case is thus perfectly maintainable.

`                                                                

          Admittedly the petitioner has been residing at his premises appertaining to Plot No. 93 of Mouza-Mirzabad, Distt. Malda which has also been accepted by OPW-3, Jagadish Murmu, in his deposition by saying that in certain portion of Plot No. 93 the petitioner has raised his residential house and since the time of his father he is staying there. It has been gathered from the evidences of O.P.s as a whole that any how they are trying to avoid effect of electric connection to the house of the complainant, the reasons, however best known to them. The complainant has submitted a photograph in support of his case which has been marked Exbt. 7, from where it is clearly evident that there is a pathway leading to the complainant’s premises and the question of drawing electric wire over other’s land does not arise. Here we are not concerned whether the complainant is a bonafide resident or not. The law in this regard is that even a trespasser is entitled to get electric connection if he fulfils some other conditions and in that case the Electricity Authority cannot evade their responsibility from effecting electric connection to the premises on the ground that the petitioner has no title over the land. From Exbt. B, it is seen that on 12.09. 2007 the electricity personnel went to the premises for giving connection but he was resisted by one Jagadish Murmu. From the evidences both oral and documentary led on behalf of O.P.s we do not find any reason as to what prompted Jagadish Murmu to resist the Electricity Authority from giving connection at the house of the complainant. We are of the view that inasmuch as the complainant observed all necessary formalities for getting connection, the

O.P.s, Electricity Authority are duty bound to provide electric connection to the premises of the complainant and in case of necessity they can take the help of police. Be it mentioned here that non-providing of electric connection to the complainant’s premises, in the present facts and circumstances of the case is tantamount to deficiency in service.

 

 

          In view of the above discussion there cannot be any shred of doubt that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection at his premises.

 

          We are, however, not inclined to pay any litigation cost in favour of the complainant.

 

          In the result the case succeeds.

 

          Proper fees have been paid.

                                                                                         Contd…..P/4

                                                          P-4

 

 

Hence,                                     ordered

 

that Malda D.F. Case No. 39/2008, be and the same, is hereby allowed on contest without cost.

 

          The petitioner do get electric service connection at his premises within 3 weeks from this date. The O.Ps. jointly and severally do arrange supply of electric connection within the stipulated period in the above manner.

 

          Let copies of this order be given to parties free of cost.

          SUMANA DAS                        SIBSANKAR PAL