DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2016
Date of filing: 09.5.2015 Date of disposal: 06.06.2016
Complainant: Sandhya Roy, W/o. Bidyut Roy, Golahat, Village & PO: Belgram, PS: Galsi, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 406.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager of Galsi Electricity Supply, Under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Village & PO- Galsi, PS- Galsi, District: Burdwan, Pin-713406.
2. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Burdwan Administrative Building, 2nd Floor, Frezer Avenue, Power House Complex, PO. & PS. & District-Burdwan, Pin-713101.
3. Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Santi Ranjan Hazra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OP-1, 2 & 3 did not provide him electric connection at her premises inspite of making entire payment as per quotation issued by the OPs.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being an aged person she used to live with her husband at the given address and her husband is earning his livelihood by means of hawkery. The Complainant is also suffering from cancer since last two years and under treatment. She is an occupier and possessor at the said premises and occupying and possessing the property as adverse possessor and constructed residential house thereon. The son of the Complainant used to reside in the same house with his family. He and his wife used to perpetrate torture upon her and for that reason the Complainant compelled to file an application before the Protection Officer under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violation act and prayed for reliefs stating therein. The case was filed before the Ld. 2nd Judicial magistrate, Burdwan. After conclusion of hearing the Ld. Court has been pleased to pass an order directing the son to restrain from any act of domestic violence against his mother. The Complainant had one domestic electric connection at her home, but her son had disconnected the said connection. There is no outstanding dues in respect of the previous electricity connection which was installed at her home. So the Complainant is passing days having no electricity connection and hence she applied for a new domestic electric connection at her premises. On 18.09.2014 she paid a sum of Rs. 348=00 towards security deposit, Rs. 400=00 as service connection charge in view of the quotation issued by the OP-1 and obtained valid money receipts against such payment. The Complainant along with her husband went at the office of the OP-1 and requested them to install new electric connection as early as possible. Accordingly after several reminders the OP-1 took an attempt to install new electric connection at her house, but they returned back without installing the same as the son of the Complainant raised objection against such installation of new connection. Thereafter the husband of the Complainant went at the office of the OP-1 on several occasions, but the OP-1 had expressed that until and unless NOC is filed from her son, they are not in a position to provide new electric connection to the Complainant at her premises. The husband of the Complainant intimated the matter to the Galsi Police Station requesting them to take appropriate action so that the Complainant could get new electric connection, but they refused to accept any complaint and informed the Complainant that they shall provide all sorts of assistance provided the electricity authority would ask for any police help for removal of any obstruction, whatsoever, for the purpose of installation of new electric connection. The Complainant requested the OP-1 for providing electric connection taking police help, but the OP-1 was very reluctant to do so. On 22.11.2014 the Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP-1 through her Ld. Advocate requesting to install new electric connection immediately, but the OP-1 remained indifferent and took no action. Thereafter the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant took initiative in this matter so that his client-Complainant would get new electric connection, but to no effect. As the WBSEDCL did not discharge their duties the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP-2 &3 to provide new electric connection for domestic purpose at her residential house as per quotation, to pay Rs. 30,000=00 as compensation due to mental agony and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost to her. The Complainant has also prayed for making direction to the OP-2 and 3 to educate properly to its incompetent officers who used to hold responsible post of the OP-Company so that a large number of bonafide consumers would not be deprived from essential service like electricity.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-1, 2, and 3 by filing conjoint written version contending that the Complainant had applied for getting a new electric connection in the prescribed form of WBSEDCL for her premises and thereafter she paid the amount as mentioned in the quotation sent by the OP-1 on 18.09.2014. After receipt of the quotation amount the staff of the OP-1 went to the premises of the Complainant to effect the proposed new electric connection, but her son raised objection claiming himself as the owner of the questioned premises and asked the staff of the OPs not to effect the said connection and as a result the OPs could not effect the electric connection to her. The Complainant knowing everything did not submit way leave permission/NOC from her son before the OPs and by suppressing the said fact the Complainant has harassed the OPs intentionally and unnecessarily. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The OPs have further mentioned that in view of the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations thereunder if there is any grievance against any bill or the payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such having an appropriate and alternative statutory Forum, this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try with the instant case. Accordingly prayer is made for dismissal of the complaint.
The Complainant has filed some documents in support of her contention. The Complainant at the time of advancing argument has placed reliance on some rulings and accordingly the copy of those Rulings has been filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.
We have carefully perused the record, documents filed by the Complainant; rulings filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant has applied for getting new electric connection at her premises before the OP-1 in the prescribed form and upon receipt of the form the OP-1 issued quotation mentioning the amount and directed the Complainant to deposit the amount. Accordingly the Complainant deposited the same within due period. The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of compliance with all formalities the OPs did not provide new electric connection at her premises as sought for. Hence this complaint is initiated for redressal of her grievance. The case of the OPs is that though the staff of the OP-1 went at the premises of the Complainant to effect electric connection in favour of the Complainant, but due to vehement objection raised by the son of the Complainant, they could not effect the electric connection. Further case of the OPs is that they were told by the son of the Complainant that being owner of the said premises he cannot give permission to provide electric connection in the name of the Complainant. It is further contended by the OPs that until and unless NOC is given by the Complainant from her son, they are not in a position to give the said connection as applied for. According to the OPs there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their behalf as they are always willing to provide electric connection to the Complainant. Hence the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Upon considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of both parties we are to say that where the Complainant has completely complied with all the formalities as per direction of the WBSEDCL, hence she is very much entitled to get new electric connection in her name at her premises. Moreover, the contention of the OPs that they are always ready to effect electric connection to the applicant, but due to objection raised by the son of the Complainant connection could not be effected. In this respect we are of the opinion that if any objection raised by the son of the Complainant as alleged by the OPs, inspite of this it was the bounden duty of the OPs to give effect connection because the OPs should know that as per the Electricity Act, 2003 an occupier is entitled to get electric connection in her/his favour subject to compliance with the formalities as per the said Act. Therefore as there is no doubt that the Complainant is residing at the said premises along with his husband for a prolonged period, hence she can easily be termed as an occupier of the same. Whether she has any right title in respect of the said premises or not, the same is not the subject matter of the Ld. Forum as the right title is to be settled by the competent Civil Court. Further we are to say in the modern civilization a person who is suffering from cancer, used to pass her days without electricity, the same cannot be entertained and encouraged, where she made application in the prescribed form and fulfilled the entire requirement as per direction of the OPs.
Moreover we all know that electricity is very essential in everyday life and in the instant case the Complainant is living without electricity for a prolonged period. In this respect we may refer to the judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140 where Hon’ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Ganguly has held that ‘the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in a civilized society. The right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of ‘life’ under Article 21.’ His Lordship has further held ‘in the current day realities of growing consumerism electricity is an essential requirement. If a person is willing to obtain supply of electricity on payment of necessary charges to the licensee and the licensee is willing to supply electricity, the right of such person to get electricity must be construed keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.’
The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on some rulings in support of her contention i.e. AIR 2012 Calcutta 205. We have carefully gone through the said ruling and in our view the said decision is applicable in the case in hand. The Complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, reported in 2012 (5) CHN (CAL) 52. Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pleased to mention in the paragraph no-6, which runs as follows-
6. ‘…………… It is settled law that the Respondent-1 electric company has a statutory duty to supply electricity to anyone who is in occupation of a premises within its area of supply. Such supply cannot be obstructed by any individual even on the ground that he disputes the right, title or interest of the said person in the premises in question. It is not the duty of the electric company to decide on the legality of the possession of a person seeking electric connection to a premises. The said issue fell for decision before a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs. Superintending Engineer reported in 2011 (2) CHN 786. In the said case the Hon’ble Special Bench, interalia, held that even a trespasser in settled position was entitled to supply of electricity under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.’
Having regard to the above-mentioned observation we are of the opinion that the Complainant is very much entitled to get electricity in her name at her occupied portion.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest without any cost. The OP-1, 2, and 3-WBSEDCL are hereby directed to give new electric service connection at the premises of the Complainant and in her name as per application within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing of this judgment. If there is any objection, the WBSEDCL are directed to take police help from the concerned Police Station and in this respect cost shall be borne by the Complainant. In default of compliance of the above-mentioned order, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution as per provision of Law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
