Date of filing : 25.08.2015
Date of S/R : 15.10.2015
Date of Order : 27.05.2016
Gopal Sen
S/o Late Fatik Sen,
Residing at Jagadishpur Tanti Para
P.O.- Jagadishpur Hat, P.S. Liluah
District-Howrah-711328……………………………………………………….Complainant
Vs.
1) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
Having its office at Salt Lake, Bidyut Bhavan,
Kolkata-700 091.
2) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd
Having its service office at Jagadishpur, P.S. –Liluah,
Howrah-711328
3) Lakshmi Kanta Debnath, S/o Lt. Dasurathi Debnath,
4) Baruna Debnath, W/o- Biswanath Debnath,
5) Rupa Debnath, W/o- Sukumar Debnath,
6) Ganga Nath, W/o Partha Nath,
O.P. 3 to 6 residing at
Jagadishpur Tanti Para
P.O.- Jagadishpur Hat, P.S. Liluah
District-Howrah-711328
P R E S E N T
President : Shri B. D. Nanda.
Member : Smt. J. Saha.
Member : Shri A. K. Pathak.
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Gopal Sen against the O.P.s, WBSEDCL AND five others praying for direction upon the O.P.s 1 & 2 to install electricity in the premises of the petitioner if necessary with police assistance .
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having no electric connection in his house situated at RS Dag No. 2712, L.R. Dag 2740 L.R Khatian No. 741 (kri) , P.S. Lilua and applied for electric connection before the O.P. 1 & 2 viz. WBSEDCL and paid the security deposit and service connection charge to the O.P. 1 & 2 who provided consumer I.D. No. 102459967 . There is 3 feet wide common passage situated in the northern and eastern side on the house of petitioner and extended upto Panchayat road. The O.P. 1 & 2 informed the petitioner to furnish way-leave permission even though there is clear mentioned such common passage in the deed of petitioner and accordingly no such permission necessary. The petitioner is entitled to get electric but the O.P. NO. 3 to 6 illegally raised objection when the WBSEDCL could not carry out the work of installation and so the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made in the petition against them and submitted that the passage to the premises of the petitioner is too narrow and zig zag for which it is not possible to make entry of PCC polls and to arrange erection of the same for effecting connection it is necessary to install iron bracket and the premises for drawing of service line. There is no negligence on the part of the O.P. 1 and 2 and they are ready and willing to give connection.
O.P.s 3 to 6 appeared in the case and by filing written version , denying allegation made against them and submitted that there is no chance of installation of iron bracket in the personal premises of others by the O.P. 1 & 2 as the same might cause danger to the human life in the premises of the present O.P. 3 to 6 and others and if such brackets are installed then the same would cause disturbance in the ingress and aggress of the O.P.s and also such bracket would cause disturbance to the common use of common passage. The case of the petitioner is false and baseless and is liable to be dismissed.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 & 2 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the get the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All these issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Gopal Sen filed affidavit in chief along with documents which proved the fact that the petitioner approached the O.P. 1 & 2 and deposit order the requisite fees but O.P. 1 & 2 submitting that even if being licensee and service provider they are always ready and willing to provide new electric connection the petitioner yet the passage leading to the premises of the petitioner is so narrow and zig zag that without putting bracket in the walls of the house of the neighbours the fresh electric connection could not be drawn and installed. The O.P. 3 to 6 also submitted in the same tune. It is noticed from the case of the petitioner that the petitioner as well as the O.P. 3 to 6 are almost all belonging to the same ancestors and all enjoy the 3 feet common passage having their own houses on both sides of the passage. They have their electric connection already and the case of the petitioner that they object to the installation of his new connection. Merely besides the statement made by O.P. 1 & 2 in one side and O.P. 3 to 6 on the other side there is no authentic documents placed that the O.P. 1 and 2 and also by O.P. 3 to 6. The O.P. 1 & 2 have not placed any sketch map prepared by their engineer or any authority that drawing electric connection through the said common passage is impossible and such plea of narrow passage can not be a cause of denying electric connection to the petitioner.
Our Hon’ble Supreme Court as well our National Commission and our High Court categorically opined that even an unauthorised occupier is entitled to get electricity and then what to speak about the present petitioner who is owner of the case mentioned house . Our Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Sri Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik & Ors opined that Distribution Licensee should find out any other way through which electric line could be drawn for supply of electricity to the applicant. This should be done as a distributing licensee had a duty to supply electricity to the applicant. Our Hon’ble High Court in Kolkata in the case between Abhimanyu Mazumder Vs. Superintendent & Anr. opined that a person in settled possession of property be it trespasser, unauthorised encroacher or squatter of any premises can apply for supply of electricity without consent of owner and is untitled to get electricity and enjoy same until he is evicted by due process of law. It is the duty of O.P. 1 & 2 who are to find out solution as to how they would provide electric connection to the petitioner and no alibi would be accepted by the Forum like stating that the passage is zig zag and other O.P.s objecting and so on. The electric connection could be drawn both by overhead line as well as below the ground line and being a service provider the WBSEDCL cannot deny such connection on the plea that they would loose huge money while drawing such line over head or below the ground line and while drawing such line they would be provided with adequate police assistance so that none of the neighbours or co-sharers could object as they all enjoy electricity and can never stand on the way of the petitioner and depriving him from getting electricity because it is the basic need of a man in the present life.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to get the electric connection as prayed for and O.P. 1 & 2 are to provide such connection either through over head or through ground as would be most suitable .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
that the CC 302/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s but without cost.
The petitioner is entitled to get fresh electric connection and the O.P. 1& 2 are directed to give such connection to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of this order and O.P.s 3 to 6 are directed not to stand on the way of such installation and both the petitioner as well as the O.P. 1 & 2 are to inform such date of installation to the local Inspector In-charge of the police who would soon render police assistance for such installation . The O.P.s failing to do so the petitioner would be at liberty the put the order in execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
