DATE OF FILING                    :   09-09-2011.

DATE OF S/R                            :   29-11-2011.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :   11-04-2012.

Smt. Ranu Basu,

wife of Sri Apurblal Basu

of village – Pantihal  ( Biswaspara ), P.O. Pantihal,

P.S. Jagatballavpur,

District – Howrah.. --------------------------------------------------------------COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

                                                P     R    E     S    E    N     T

                         1.     President    :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,

                                                           M.A., LLB,  WBHJS.

                         2.     Member     :      Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.Ps. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service and praying for direction upon the o.ps. to supply electricity at the premises of the complainant without claiming any amount for extra pole, for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and for litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2.         The complainant filed a requisition for supply of domestic connection of electricity at the premises under Dag no. 4295, J.L. No. 49, Mouza - Pantihal, Bargachia, on 31-08-2009 along with other receipts dated 09-07-2009 and 31-07-2009. Accordingly inspection was carried out by the o.ps. on 11-10-2009. The inspection report dated 22-01-2010 stated that her connection is to be effected by erection of four numbers of PCC Poles measuring 8 meters. Thereafter the complainant submitted a representation stating that one or more connections were effected earlier by the o.ps. at another portion of the said Dag no. 4295 and to other  plots by support of angles erected on the ground. Therefore, the complainant prayed for supply of electricity through the same angle as it would be convenient on the part of the o.ps. to effect the supply.  Hence the case.

3.         The O.Ps. in their written version contended interalia that the supply of electricity  as demanded by the complainant is a dangerous one article and it may cause loss of lives and properties in case further load is given on the same angle ; that the same angles are not sufficient to catch up more service cables or conductors in the point of  tensile strength and safety rules ; that there is no other alternative to erect another angle for effecting supply of connection ; that PCC pole support shall be the best remedy for supply of electricity as prayed for ; that the cost of pole shall be borne by the o.ps. but S.C. charges and security deposit based on her demand load shall have to  be borne by the complainant ; that the complainant has not come before Court in clean hands ; that the matter was heard by the Ombudsman ; that the complainant ought to have preferred superior Forum against the direction of the Ombudsman ; that the instant complaint is totally misconceived.       

4.         Upon pleadings of  both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the distribution licensee. Distribution licensee has a statutory obligation to supply electricity to the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the o.ps. candidly submitted that they are always willing to supply the electric connection by strictly observing the formalities as they are the creatures of statute. The persistent claim of the complainant that the supply of electricity must be through angels as was the case of her neighbours  cannot be supported as the existing angle is unworthy of bearing further load. That will endanger the lives and safety of the neighbours. We appreciate the submission of the ld. Lawyers for the o.ps. that the supply of electricity as prayed for can be provided through PCC Poles, the cost of which shall be borne by the o.ps. The complainant is to choose either of the options – whether to receive the electric connection or such connection should be through the angles running huge risks. The feasibility of such supply must be looked into. We cannot altogether ignore the point of safety as raised on the part of the o.ps. Since the O.Ps. concerned  is a public utility service, it cannot bear any malice against the complainant as canvassed on behalf of her. When the o.ps. as per present rule are ready to supply the requisite PCC Pole, the complainant shall not have any objection against such supply of electricity confirming the safety and security. It is the duty of the complainant to identify the places where such PCC Poles at the cost of the o.ps. shall be planted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to award any compensation against the o.ps.

      In the result both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                                                             O   r   d   e   r   e   d

      That the C. C. Case No. 70 of 2011 ( HDF 70 of 2011 )  be  allowed on contest without  costs  against  the O.Ps.  

      The O.Ps. be directed to provide electric connection at the premises of the complainant by supplying the requisite four PCC Poles within one month from the date of this order. The complainant shall provide the other ancillary costs as per rule.

      No order as to litigation costs.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.