SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            The gist of the complaint case is that the complainant applied for a new domestic connection in his residence in plot no. 6523 at village Padumbasan, PO & PS Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur, vide application No. 2002437608 before the OP of this case. The OP by a letter dated 13.04.2017 demanded Rs. 1000/- by a quotation dated 18.03.2017.The complainant deposited that amount on 13.04.2017 but till date the OP did not provide any electric connection in his residence.

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 WBSEDCL.

 As  per the complaint  case, the cause of action of this case arose on and from 12.05.2017.

            The OP 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.

            The specific case of this OP is that the complainant applied for a new domestic connection through Web Portal (On line application) of WBSEDCL on 18.03.2017 and he deposited the quotation money along application form “Procedure A” on 13.04.2017 at Tamluk CCC. He also deposited Rs. 1039 as security deposit against online generated quotation vide application No. 2002437608.  On the basis of that application the OP caused inspection on 20.04.2017 at the premises of Tarun Kumar De. On inspection it was found that there is an existing meter having No. 10461670 (Consumer ID No. 222010301) in that premises  of the complainant. The complainant was consuming power through that meter. As per office records it was found that said meter was standing in the name of Baidyanath De, since deceased, father of the present complainant.   It is the case of the OP that instead of changing name in the existing meter the complainant prayed for a new connection. A letter vide Memo No. TCCC/324 dated 19.05.2017 was issued in the name of the complainant to the effect that his connection could not be provided because of the existing meter in the same premises. By said letter Sri Dey was requested to take effective steps to resolve the issue. But the complainant did not take any steps in that regard.

            In the aforesaid circumstances the OP has prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint .

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.

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 and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant.

            There is no dispute that the complainant deposited quotation amount of Rs. 1000/- on 13.04.2017 as service connection charges  and  Rs. 1035/- as security deposit against online generated quotation vide application No. 2002437608 . It is also not disputed that inspection was carried out by the officials of the OP on 20.04.2017 regarding the aforesaid connection of electricity. OP’s contention is that  there was already a meter in the premises  of the complainant  being No. 10461670 (Consumer ID No. 222010301) in the name of complainant’s  father , since deceased, the complainant is enjoying electricity  from said meter. According to the OP, the complainant intentionally applied for the new domestic line after the death of his father for splitting loan and to cause loss of revenue of the WBSEDCL.

            In this connection the OP has submitted the Kolkata Gazette of West Bengal  Electricity Regulation Commission dated 02.04.2013 and has pointed out to Clause 14 where it has been provided  that if any applicant/intending consumer/consumer submits any application for new connection with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong/inaccurate /false statement, 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 if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of these regulations, shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest  of the charges is refunded to him. It is also submitted by the OP that after the death of father of the complainant Baidyanath Dey,  he left behind four heirs i.e 1. Sujan Kumar Dey, 2. Subhas Kumar Dey, (a) Smtya Padma Dey, (b)  Suprakash Dey, 3) Tarun Kumar Dey and 4. Barun Kumar Dey. Amongst them Subhas Kumar Dey died on 23.12.2010)  .

           It is settled  law that on the death of the original owner of the meter, his legal heirs will be entitled to  get electricity from a new meter which will be supplied  by the Distribution Co.  In the present case the complainant has applied for getting electricity  and also he has deposited the quotation money according to rules of the OP and  there is no cogent evidence from the side of the OP to prove that for splitting of load of electricity he has applied for new meter for getting electricity in his premises.

            As electricity  is an essential service the OP should provided electricity  after complying the rules and regulations  of changing name of the deceased father of the petitioner withholding the old meter in name of father of the petitioner  and should install a new meter in the name of complainant and others., For that reason  we are of the view that  OP should provide electricity according to the application of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs in this complaint.

            In view of the aforesaid discussion we are not inclined to impose any compensation or  litigation cost on the OPs.

            Both the points are answered accordingly.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/555 of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.

The OP is hereby directed to install  new electric meter after complying all the rules and regulations of the Board within 40 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- which the complainant will be at liberty to recovery according to law.

Considering the merit of this case we do not allow  any litigation cost to the complainant.

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