Both parties are present. Judgement is ready. It is pronounced in open Commission in 5 pages 3 seperate sheet of paper.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant has filed the instant complaint for Deficiency of Service by Opposite Party in providing new domestic electric connection in the scheduled premises of complainant. The Complainant has owned and possessed schedule specified demarcated 3 land by constructing one storied pucca doweling house therein in. Complainant has acquired the schedule land by dint of four registered sale deeds. L.R.R.O.R. correctly prepared in the name of complainant in respect of schedule land. Complainant has paid regular rent & taxes for the same. In north-eastern side of the schedule land there is Tamluk-Mecheda Bus Road and there is a P mark Baram Pathway from the Bus road to the House of complainantas shown in the schedule hand sketch map. The P mark baram pathway surrounded by both side boundary wall. The Complainant has been residing in the schedule house property along with his family members. But as there is no electric connection. The complainant applied before Opposite Party for new domestic electric connection and for the same Complainant paid Rs. 2053/- as service connection charge & Security deposit in the account of opposite party through E-Payment. Opposite Party after receiving the aforesaid money made spot enquiry of the field. Opposite after spot enquiry satisfied with the way leave through P mark baram pathway as shown in the schedule Hand sketch Map. Thereafter Opposite party erected there electric poles over the P mark baram pathway in order to draw the electric connection from the northeastern side electric pole standing beside the Government Bus Road. Despite aforesaid act opposite parties did not take any further steps to provide new electric connection in the schedule premises. Rather Opposite party under objection of one ShibramMaity avoided his duty and made deficiency in service. Thereafter complainant had repeatedly orally requested opposite party for providing the aforesaid new electric connection but opposite parties without any reason unnecessarily delayed the process of electrification and did not make any electrification in the schedule below house of complainant. Last of all opposite party vide letter dated 26.11.2019 refused to provide the electric connection in the schedule below premises of complainant on some illegal and baseless grounds. Thus complainant was compelled to file this case. The Complainant submits that complainant being the bonafide consumer of opposite parties has every right to get the electric connection as prayed for. There is no way leave problem. It is the duty of the opposite parties to make quick arrangement of the same. Opposite party cannot just refuse the same on the so-called grounds. A such complainant is entitle to get order as prayed for. The complainant prays for passing an order against the opposite party to give immediate electric connection to complainant in his schedule premises. and other necessary order or orders as complainant entitle to get under law andequity.
The op , upon notice, has contested the case by filing written version. The sum and substance of the written version are that the complainant has filed the stated complaint for deficiency of service by Opposite Party in providing new domestic electric connection in the stated premises are very much denied being false, baseless, purposive, illegal. Each and every statements of the petition of complaint are false, baseless, frivolous andillegal and the Complainant is put to the strict proof of his all such statements as made in different para save and except the statements which are the matters on record all . The instant case is not maintainable in its present form, prayer and in law. The instant claim case is not maintainable within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date. The instant complaint is barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. The instant complaint is barred by the provisions of Indian Contract Act. The instant Complaint is barred by the express terms, conditions and principles of the Essential Conditions of Supply as well as the established Rules, regulations and norms framed by WBSEDCL as well as W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity Rules framed there under. The Complainant can not get any benefit from this O.P. for his own willful latches and suppression of material facts and for his ill attempts to put this O.P. as well as the WBSEDCL in various damages. The instant case is not maintainable due to non-joiner of the essential parties and all the co-sharer of the intervening plots of land for effecting the claimed service connection. It is also submitted that the named person Shiburam Maity as stated in para 3 of the petition of complaint is an essential party in this case who has raised physical and written objection as to the shown way leave by the Complainant. This Opposite Party most humblybegs to submit that the Complainant in this case Sri Debashis Mondal applied for a domestic service connection and as persuch application quotation was issued subject to the terms and conditions of effecting a new service connection as per his shown way leave and he deposited the quotation money. After deposition of quotation money the technical staff attached to the office of this O.P. made preliminary survey at the locality as shown by the applicant –Complainant and it was found that there is a need of PCC pole for effecting the service connection in the route as shown by the complainant in the locality. Accordingly work order was issued to the enlisted contractor of this O.P. for erection of the PCC pole for providing electric service connection to the premises of the complainant but at the time commencing the work of erection of PCC pole, one shiburam Maity along with some others raised physical objections for the work and also made written objection in the office of this O.P. making objection as to the drawing of electric lines over the shown way leave land and also submitted one Court information as to the Civil litigation bearing T.S. No. 135 of 2016 in the Ld. Court of the Civil Judge (S.D), 1st. Court at Tamluk filed by said Sri ShiburamMaity against Sri Shibashis Mondal, Sri Debashis Mondal & Sri Ashok Samanta. The matter of such objection was intimated several times and also in writing to the Complainant on 27.04.2019 and lastly on 26.11.2019 and was requested to resolve the issue/objection so that the service connection be effected in the premises of the Complainant but the complainant without making any correspondences with this O.P. has initiated this case and also trying to insist this O.P. to draw the service lines over the lands of others forcefully with his mal-intention to put and involve this O.P. in the disputes amongst the owners of the adjoining land owner/co-sharers when there is a pending civil case and without making the objector Sri Shiburammaity a party in this case. Complainant was on several occasions asked to resolve the disputes and to give free way leave but he himself neglected in the matter and willfully violated the prime condition for getting the electric supply as per the terms and conditions and trying to get the service line by involving this Opposite Party in their personal disputes and disagreements with his neighbor whose no objection is very much required for drawing overhead electric line. But without doing so the complainant further applied for new service connection in the same premises on 27.06.2019 suppressing his earlier application. This O.P. further begs to submit that there are no willful latches or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party but the complainant suppressing his own latches and negligence initiated this proceeding by suppressing all those material facts. As such the instant case is liable to be rejected for the own fault of the complainant. This O.P. is always ready to effect the new service connection in the premises of the Complainant if the personnel of this O.P. be not in any way resisted in drawing the service lines and to complete the work.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, evidence of complainant and op alongwith documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service against the op- ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
On scanning and evaluation of the evidence, it appears that the complainant has alleged on oath thathe has been residing in the schedule house property along with his family members. But as there is no electric connection.he applied before Opposite Party for new domestic electric connection and for the same Complainant paid Rs. 2053/- as service connection charge & Security deposit in the account of opposite party through E-Payment. Opposite Party after receiving the aforesaid money made spot enquiry of the field. Opposite after spot enquiry satisfied with the way leave through P mark baram pathway as shown in the schedule Hand sketch Map. Thereafter Opposite party erected there electric poles over the P mark baram pathway in order to draw the electric connection from the northeastern side electric pole standing beside the Government Bus Road. Despite aforesaid act opposite parties did not take any further steps to provide new electric connection in the schedule premises. Rather Opposite party under objection of one Shibram Maity avoided his duty and made deficiency in service. Thereafter complainant had repeatedly orally requested opposite party for providing the aforesaid new electric connection but opposite parties without any reason unnecessarily delayed the process of electrification and did not make any electrification in the schedule below house of complainant. Last of all opposite party vide letter dated 26.11.2019 refused to provide the electric connection in the schedule below premises of complainant on some illegal and baseless grounds. Thus complainant was compelled to file this case. On the other hand the op has contended inter alia that the complainant without making any correspondences with this O.P. has initiated this case and also trying to insist this O.P. to draw the service lines over the lands of others forcefully with his mal-intention to put and involve this O.P. in the disputes amongst the owners of the adjoining land owner/co-sharers when there is a pending civil case and without making the objector Sri Shiburammaity a party in this case. Complainant was on several occasions asked to resolve the disputes and to give free way leave but he himself neglected in the matter and willfully violated the prime condition for getting the electric supply as per the terms and conditions and trying to get the service line by involving this Opposite Party in their personal disputes and disagreements with his neighbor whose no objection is very much required for drawing overhead electric line. But without doing so the complainant further applied for new service connection in the same premises on 27.06.2019 suppressing his earlier application. This O.P. further begs to submit that there are no willful latches or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party but the complainant suppressing his own latches and negligence initiated this proceeding by suppressing all those material facts.
Now, it appears that the complainant has been occupying and residing in the house / premises since long. There is no injunction or restraint order from any Learned Civil Court or from any Superior Court. The petitioner has every right to claim electricity as occupier under section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. The right to Electricity is also a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, allowing the prayer for electric connection will not mean to be any adjudication in respect any proceeding or suit may be pending interse between the complainant and objector Sri Shiburam Maity. The opposite party would have given the electric connection as prayed for; it was an instance of deficiency in service on the part of the op.The opposite party requires to be directed to effect the new service connection in the premise of the complainant immediately.
Both the points are decided accordingly.
Thus, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/32 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The opposite partyis hereby directed to effect the new service connection in the premise of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order ; in default the complainant will get Rs. 200/-( Two Hundred) per day after expiry of said 45 days until effecting the said electric connection in the form of compensation and towards litigation costs from the op.
The complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution if requires.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP free of cost.
