Date of filing: 05.07.2017                                                            Date of disposal:20.03.2018

Complainant: Dr. Arindam Roy, S/o. Dr.Aditya Prasad Roy, resident of 38, Golahat Road,

                           Matrisadan, P.O.-Sripally, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713103.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: WBSEDCL, represented by its branch office, Burdwan SEC-3, Customer Care

                               Centre, Baranilpur Bazar, Burdwan.

Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).

                Hon’ble Member:  Miss Nivedita Ghosh.

               Hon’ble Member :  Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy.

Appeared for the Complainant: Complainant himself.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.

JUDGEMENT

This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.P. to give electric connection to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

The complainant’s case in short is that he is a citizen of India, applied for electric connection in individual portion of undivided property which is under the ownership of the complainant’s mother.  The mother of the complainant has given permission to reside and use and occupation of complainant’s portion of the house which is demarcated in notaries declaration.  The dispute arose when electricity bill raised and existing wire which have low load capacity and for the protection of the house new connection will be needed and for this reason the complainant made an application (Online) on 27.3.2017 and submitted requisite fees.  The complainant submitted all the required documents before the O.P. on 2.5.2017.

That on 27.5.2017 the O.P. have rejected the application of the complainant with explanation 14 of notification No.53 of WBSERC which read as 14. Effect of splitting of load: 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 statements, 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.  The complainant cited a judgment of Hon’ble High Court (Akd Syed Masihul Hassan Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors.).

The present existing connection was in the name of the Complainant’s father, Sri Aditya Prasad Roy and the new applicant is Arindam Roy.  The complainant alleges that O.P. making unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice.  Complainant never makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for electric connection of complainant and usefulness of goods or services.  It is a necessity.  Findings no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief as prayed for.

The O.P. contested the case by filing written version stating the fact that the complainant Arindam Roy of 38 Golahat Road Town, S.S. & Dist. Burdwan filled up one application vide application No.5001544858 for new connection through online on 26.3.2017 and deposited the charges on 27.3.2017 through on line payment and thereafter the complainant submitted the hard copy of his application along with the documents related to the premises in question and an affidavit of Smt. Protima Roy on 2.5.2017 and accordingly an inspection was made on 12.05.2017 and found that one Electric connection having Consumer No.512035293  in the name of Aditya Prosad Roy is existing in the self same premises, the ward No.4 holding number of the premises are the same.  The complainant has no separate premises to reside.  The O.P. alleges that actually Protima Roy with an intention to split up their electric load for getting lower tariff benefit only has sworn such affidavit. In view of clause 14 of the Notification No.53 of  the WBERC splitting up the load of the premises is not permissible and due to obvious reason the complainant has been intimated the reason for non effecting his connection vide Memo No.SM/BDN CCC-III/729 dated 27.5.2017.

When the complainant cited a judgment of Hon’ble High Court (Akd Syed Masihul Hassan Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors.). where the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the licensee company to grant the new connection subject to fulfillment of all conditions.  But O.P. alleges that complainant is neither the owner nor co-owner/co-sharer of the premises where the connection is sought for and as such the ruling as submitted by the complainant is not all applicable and the same was intimated to the complainant vide Memo No.SM/BDN CCC-III/NSC.  That actually, the complainant knowing everything just to harass this O.P. filed the instant false case which is fit to be dismissed with cost.

DECISION WITH REASONS

To prove this case the complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit where he stated all the facts of this case as per the complaint petition.  He also filed documents showing payment of requisite fees along with application form seeking electric connection in his residence.  The complainant also filed photocopies of rent receipt in the name of his mother Protima Roy, who is the owner of the said holding No.482, word No.18 of Burdwan Municipality, L.R. Parcha, Adhar Card of the complainant etc. and also an affidavit sworn by Smt. Protima Roy that she purchased the said property, the residential house where she along with her both married sons are residing.  The mother of the complainant gave permission  to the complainant to take connection of electricity in the said premises in the portion of the house where the complainant is residing.

            O.P. put questionnaires to the evidence of the complainant.  O.P. filed written version supported by affidavit.  Heard argument both sides.  O.P. argues that the dispute regarding electricity connection should be raised before the Ombudsmen as Regulatory Authority U/s.42 (5) (6) of Electricity Act.   That, complainant files this petition as harassing one with intention to split up their electric load for getting lower tariff benefit and filed affidavit sworn by  his mother with such malaise.  However, from the citation of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.19603(W) of 2016 as mentioned by the parties Hon’ble High Court opined that a co-sharer of un-divided premises refused to get electric connection due to objection raised by the other co-sharers and licensing authority then  Hon’ble High Court directed to grant new connection subject to fulfillment of some conditions.  In this case the complainant is residing in his demarcated portion of the house as his mother is the owner of the premises and she raised no objection, rather gave permission swearing in affidavit so that the complainant can get electricity in his residence.  Therefore, the refusal by the O.P. is not tenable and O.P. electricity company is definitely deficient and negligent in service by not granting electric connection to the complainant in that premises though O.P. admitted that complainant is residing in the said house of his mother, Protima Roy and existing electric connection is in the name of husband of Protima Roy.  Therefore, complainant is entitled to get electric connection in his residence with permission from his mother.  O.P. necessarily harassed the complainant by refusing electric connection which is a necessity.  There is no evidence that complainant conspired with his mother with intention to split up their electric load for getting lower tariff benefit etc. as alleged.

            After going through the petition of complaint, the documents filed by the parties and evidence on record and also hearing argument advanced by the parties we allow the complaint petition accordingly.  Hence the complaint case succeeds in part.  C.F. paid is correct.    Hence, it is

Ordered

that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. but without any cost. The O.P. is directed to effect electric connection in the premises of the complainant after observing all the formalities within thirty (30) days from this date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.  No further order regarding compensation for harassment, is allowed.

Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

                     Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                        President       

                                                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                   Jayanti Maitra (Ray)                   

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

              (Nivedita Ghosh)                                                              (Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy)

                    Member                                                                             Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan