Before:     Hon’ble President, Biswanath De.

                                             Hon’ble Member, Debi Sengupta.                                         

                                             Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                                                                        FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra,Member.

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant residing at Vill.-Kalsadanga under Mouza-Goswami Malipara within Goswami Malipara Gram Panchayet. The complainant and his maternal family members are residing separately in the schedule mentioned property by way of mutual partition and in separate mess.  In this regard the complainant filed a Panchayet Certificate which will prove that the complainant is residing in separately. 

The complainant applied for getting a new electric connection for his premises in the office of the O.P. No.1 in a prescribed form in the month of September, 2016 on payment of requisite fees and he deposited a sum of Rs.558/- towards security money on 28.12.2015.  The complainant also deposited Rs.400/- as service connection charge totaling Rs.958/- in the office of the O.P. No.1.

The O.P. enquired the feasibility of the connection to be drawn and way leave and position of existing electric pole and they were satisfied on those points. All the formalities were over as per demand made by the O.P. No.1 but till today O.P. No.1 did not effect connection in the house of the complainant for the reason best known to them.  The O.P. No.1 & 2 till today did not intimate any information to the petitioner for not providing electric connection in the house of the petitioner.  The mere silence on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  The O.P. verbally advised the complainant to obtain an order from the competent court to effect electric connection.  The complainant several times requested the O.Ps. to provide electric connection in his portion but none of the O.Ps. pay any heed to it. The attitude of the O.Ps. caused mental pain and agony in the mind of the complainant.  Finding no other alternatives the complainant has been compelled to file this case before this Forum for relief with direction to the O.ps. to effect electric connection in the house of the complainant, to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony, to pay Rs.5000/-  for illegal withholding electric connection to the complainant.

O.P. No.1 & 2 both jointly contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. The O.Ps. submit that after filing application by the complainant for new connection and as per quotation the amount of Rs.558/- only had been deposited.  But this O.P. after thorough inspection it was detected that the complainant filed his application for new service connection only to split-up the total load factor of the existing electric line as there is no separate land specification and for which the O.P. No.1 had intimated the intending consumer about the inability to supply connection to the representative of the complainant vide letter dated 01.02.2017.  So, there is/was no intentional latches or deficiency of service for not providing the electric connection to the petitioner.

The provision of law U/s. 43 of Indian Electricity Act is very clear i.e. to provide electric connection to the intending consumer subject to maintaining all other formalities which are absent in the complainant’s case.  So, it is rightly denied by the O.ps.  It is admitted that the property has not been partitioned as per provisions of law.  Moreover, no such documentary evidence submitted by the complainant in respect of separate entity.  Practically the petitioner ought to be proved by filing cogent documents about the separate entity which the complainant could not able to do.  So, there is no question of any latches on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence, this O.Ps.  prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

Both the parties have not filed evidence on affidavit. Argument advanced by the parties heard in full. They also filed the written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.    

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant Sk. Muzabber Ali is a  ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

                                          2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                                          3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?

                                          4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Sk. Muzabber Ali is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant applied for new connection and he promised to pay necessary charges to the license, he became a prospective consumer of the opposite party so the petitioner is a consumer of the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

  (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

     Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

  (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

      The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

      The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

     The case of the complainant is that he has been residing in the schedule mentioned property of his maternal uncle’s house in separate mess for 33 years and there is no connection in his name. So he applied for a new connection depositing a sum of Rs.558/- towards security deposit money on 28.12.2016 and also Rs. 400/- towards service charges totaling to Rs.958/- in the office of the opposite party. The opposite party officer were satisfied with the feasibility of said connection to be drawn and way leave and position of existing pole but reason best known to then why they did not provide electric connection after receiving money from them although the maternal uncle has no objection regarding his connection. He several times met the OP to enquire the reason of withholding his connection but the OP rather than providing the connection misbehaved with him.  According to this complainant such act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service for which the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying for a direction upon the OP. In his argument the complainant averred that a license has legal duty to provide electric connection in the house of the consumer in terms of section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act. He also assailed that the complainant has no power connection as such there is no question of reducing load factor.

The opposite party in his written version as well as written argument averred that the complainant applied for power connection as occupier and filed voters card and panchayet tax receipt. The opposite party on verification found that there is an existing power connection in the name one Mst. Halima Khatun who claims to be owner of the said landed property. As per electricity Rules vide Notification No.53/WBERC, Regulation 14 speaks that If any application is found for new service connection on the same holding premises with the intension for splitting the load to obtain benefit of lower changer or furnisher wrong inaccurate statements the said application would liable to be rejected and 25% of the charges made by the intending consumer to be forfeited and the rest amount are to be refunded. The answering OP informed his view through letter dated 01.02.2017 to the complainant. He also stated that the complainant failed to show the ownership of the said plot of land in which the connection opted. So the OP is not deficient in proving service to this complaint for which they are not liable to pay any compensation and other reliefs.        

 After perusing the complaint petition, written objection of the OP, the written arguments of both sides and hearing the arguments this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant being a law abiding citizen of India applied for power connection to meet his need as he is residing in the separate mess in the precincts of his relatives for a prolonged period.  But his aspiration of getting power in his name has been frustrated at the gesture of the opposite party. As the opposite party is habituated in collecting huge amount for accumulated units for three months so he/she always worried regarding the splitting of loads.   The O.P. filed the Kolkata Gazette in which West Bengal Regulatory Commission vide its Notification Dated 02.04.2013 in Regulation-14 mentioned the effect of splitting of loads; ‘if any applicant/intending consumer/consumer submits any application for new connection(s) 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 provision 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.  While rejecting the application the consumer/intending consumer is to be intimated in writing about the ground for rejection.  It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the load.  Any dispute in this regard is to be settled in the office of the Ombudsman’.

       Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003,-the occupier of the premises is entitled for electricity supply in his name, if the owner refused to take connection in his name. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within its area. The occupier of the premises is entitled as of her own right under Section 43 to supply of electricity and respondent No. 1  i.e. OP should have ensured that such supply was restored to the petitioner after complying with all necessary formalities as provided under the Act and the Rules and Regulations made there under. In case, the owner of the premises for any reason is not willing for supply of electricity in his name then the supply shall be made in the name of the petitioner who is the occupant of the premises and the meter shall also be installed in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner will be liable for all charges of consumption of electricity.

  So, the act is very clear to provide electricity to any occupant.  But the case in hand the house owner has no objection regarding the new connection of power in his premises/precincts occupied by her remote relative.  The occupant prayed power connection following the norms of electricity but the electricity authority refused him with a lame excuse that to split the load the complainant prayed new connection.  If the existing consumer prayed for new connection then there is any question of splitting load.  The complainant staying for a prolonged period in the

 precincts of of his relative but he has no power connection in his name he is compelled to pay electric bill in higher rate alongwith the house owner. So the complainant with bonafide intention applied for power in his name and the owner of the house has no objection in that situation it is the duty of the licensee to provide power following norms as envisaged in the Act.

       It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act, to protect the interest of consumers, literal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach.

 From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite party. So the opposite party cannot escape his liability to provide power in the name of this complainant as occupier.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

         The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to this consumer.

ORDER

     Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.70/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party, with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.4000/-.

    The Opposite Party is directed to provide power in the name of this complainant in the schedule mentioned part in which he is residing within 45 days from this order.

    The said OP is also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.4,000/- to this complainant for mental pain and agony.  

  All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of order.

   At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

   Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.

  Dictated and corrected by me Samaresh Kr. Mitra, Member.