1. The complainant being a tenant and residing at BH-101, Kestopur, Majherpara, P.O. - Krishnapur under P.S.- Baguiati has filed this case on 18.11.2020 against WBSEDCL and the station manager of WBSEDCL alleging that the OPs have unjustly refused to give a new separate electric connection to the dwelling unit of the complainant although requisite amount for connection charges and security deposit were realised from him. As per quotation raised by the OPs, the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- for connection charges and Rs. 883/- for security deposit on 19.09.2016 and the OPs refused to give connection by issuing a letter on 06.12.2026 mainly on the ground that there were two separate connection in the building in question. According to the complainant, the refusal order passed by the OPs was unjust and improper for which he is entitled to compensation. He has sought for direction to the OPs for installation of electric meter in the dwelling unit of the complainant and also for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to cost of litigation and other reliefs.
2. The OPs, with a view to contest the case filed W/V on 19.02.2019 denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating categorically that the complainant was asked under letter dated 19.12.2017 to take refund of the paid amount as the building in which he tried to get a new meter was having two other electric meters. According to the OPs, with a view to split up load the aforesaid application was filed by the complainant with a prayer for new electric meter in the dwelling unit under his occupation. The OPs have ultimately sought for dismissal of the case.
3. The only question which needs to be decided in this case is whether the OPs was justified in not allowing the complainant’s prayer for a new electric meter in the dwelling unit under his occupation or not.
4. In support of his case the complainant has filed copies of rent receipts issued by the land lord in his favour and also the money receipts granted by the OPs after accepting the connection charges and security deposit from the complainant; BNA and other material documents. The documents filed by the complainant have not been challenged by the other side. It is abundantly clear from the rent receipts that the complainant has been residing in a housing bearing no. BH-101, Kestopur, Majherpara, P.O. - Krishnapur under P.S.- Baguiati as a tenant. It is quite apparent from the record that connection charges and security deposit were realised from him by the OPs.
5. It has been contended by the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that the application for a new meter could not be entertained due to the presence of two other electric meters in the said building. It has also been contended by him that with a view to split up the power load the complainant has sought for a new electric connection. From the material on record it is abundantly clear that the building containing the dwelling unit of the complainant was having two other electric meters bearing no. P 1207127 and 1482925 from before and that for split up power load a new electric meter was sought for.
6. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the OPs has next contended that another dispute of this nature is to be settled in the office of Ombudsman as per decision of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and he has referred to Para 14 of the notification of the regulatory Commission bearing no. 53/WBERC dated 2^nd April, 2013. He has also relied upon a decision issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in FA no. 483/2015 on 31.01.2018 in the First Appeal no. 785 of 2015 in connection with complaint case no. 134/2013 is that as per Rule 14 of WBERC Regulation notification no. 13/WBERC dated 02.04.2013 two simultaneous connection at the same premises are impermissible as it amounts to split of load. If we connect the said observation of the Hon’ble NCDRC with notification no. 53 dated 02.04.2013 it becomes quite clear that the dispute raised by the complainant as against the OPs could be disposed of by the Ombudsman only and that Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the same apart from that when the building in question is already having two other separate electric meters. Another meter if allotted will surely cause split of load which cannot be permitted to prevail. It is obvious from the W/V that the complainant abstain from taking refund of the paid amount although he was asked to do so. There will be a direction to the OPs for causing of the refund of the paid amount. The complainant’s application for a new meter was rightly turned down by the OPs to avoid split of load. The case of the complainant as such, cannot succeed; rather fails.

Hence it is ordered that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest;but without cost.

However, the OPs will return the paid amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days hence without any interest.

Let  a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT