DATE OF FILING : 28/01/2014
DATE OF S/R : 24/02/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17/10/2014
SMT. JUTIKA BARNWAL
W/O Deb Narayan Barnwal,
Vill Gayeshpur, P.O. Baluhati
P.S. Domjur,
Howrah-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1) West Bengal State Electricity Board Distribution Company Ltd.
Jagadishpur Hat, P.O. Jagdishpur,
Howrah 711 114
2) SRI BHUTNATH NASKAR
S/O Lt. Becharam Naskar,
Vill Gayeshpur, P.O. Baluhati
P.S. Domjur,
Howrah 711 405-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
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.P. WBSEDCL Authority, alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority, to effect new electric service connection through separate meter at his occupied premises at dag no. 110(P) under khatian no. 327/2 within P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah., together with compensation and litigation costs as the WBSEDCL Authority, in spite of observing the necessary formalities by the complainant has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free access at the complainant schedule premise.
2. The o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority in his written version stated that the
complainant already paid the service connection charges & security deposit money and complied with all other formalities and that they have no objection in effecting the connection through installation of new meter if free and clear access is provided.
3. The o.p.no. 2 on the other hand vide their written version stated that the
complainant suppressed the material facts and also a T.S. being no. 310 of 2013 before the ld. 4th Court of Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah, is pending for dispute regarding the passage through which O.H. line is proposed to be passes through in the property of the complainant for which she has no right, title, interest in the schedule premises where she wants to take connection in her name. This answering o.p. further stated that the complainant deliberately/ willfully suppressed the facts and as a matter in fact the case is sub judice in the civil court and the complainant cannot get any relief and liable to be dismissed on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority ?
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. Since the complainant being a lawful occupier is suffered for want of electricity and the o.p. no. 1 is willing to effect the new service connection the objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 cannot sustain at this critical juncture as per Electricity Act ( 36 of 2003 ), Ss 43, 176, 67 – Works of Licensee Rules ( 2006 ) which runs as under :
“Persons in settled possession of property be it trespasser, unauthorized encroacher squatter of any premises, can apply for supply electricity without consent of co-sharer – Is entitled to get electricity and enjoy same by due process of law.” [ Reference W.B. no. 423 of 2010, dated 11-02-2011 before the Hon’ble High Court registered AIR 2011 Cal P-64 ].
7. From the above we have our considered opinion that under Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003, occupier has a statutory right, and licensee as distribution company has a statutory obligation to give electric connection to occupier – Pendency of suit with the other co-sharers with interim injunction if any against the petitioner, the electric connection cannot change nature and character of the property.
Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law as elaborated, his demand requires to be fulfilled.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 41 of 2014 ( HDF 41 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority without cost and dismissed against O.P. 2 without cost.
The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority, be directed for effecting the new service connection at the schedule premises of the complainant as stated through common passage where quotational amount was deposited in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 2 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the service connection at the schedule premises of the complainant.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. no. 2 namely BHUTNATH NASKAR against effecting the service connection at the complainant schedule premises, the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority, shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Domjur, P.S. The O/C Domjur, P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officer of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority, for providing connection at the meter room position to effect the connection in case of approach made by the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority.
No costs both compensation and litigation are awarded.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
