Date of filing: 10.10.2020 Date of disposal: 26.09.2023
Complainant: Shibani Ray, W/o-Sri Paresh Chandra Ray, resident of 442, B.C. Road, Barobazar, Panja Brothers’ Lane, P.O.& P.S.- Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman, 713101
-V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Sector-2, Kolkata, Pin-700091.
2. Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Power House, P.O. & P.S.- Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman, 713101.
3. Div. Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Burdwan, Power House, P.O. & P.S. –Burdwan, Dist. Purba Bardhaman,713101.
Present:
Smt. Subrata Saha (Hazra) Hon’ble President
Ms. Lipika Ghosh Hon’ble Member
Mr. Atanu Kumar Dutta Hon’ble Member
Appeared for the Complainant: Subrata Ghosh & Debdas Rudra -Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Biswanath Nag -Ld. Advocate.
F i n a l O r d e r
Grievance which was lashed by the complainant, being a senior citizen, that in the year i.e., on 04.12.2019 she deposited the money of Rs.1055/- as quotation money to the department of Electricity i.e., as O.Ps of this case for taking a new domestic connection to avail the facility of electric. But unfortunate to express, she was failed to get any connection at her house after a repeated request to the department. She at the time of Covid situation on taking risk of her life went to the officer concerned (O.P.No.2)/department of electricity to be informed about her disqualification on getting it but department or the officer in charge of the section / concerned officer shown a ground of objection by the neighbors of her premises behind way leave. But the department did not able to give her any of such reason in writing about objection by the neighbors except oral information. Hence she approached before this Commission for getting relief of having domestic connection in respect of her quotation money which not terminated still now.
O.P.-Electric Department made response to this complaint petition with the strength of their officers who were categorically implicated as O.Ps in this case by the complainant. As per W/V by the department through empowered officer is that, there is no relation in between this complainant and the O.P. which may enable this Commission to take up the matter under Consumer Protection Act. The complaint itself is barred under Section 42 (5) (6) of Electricity Act. The gist of their version is that the matter/litigation to be thrashed before the Regulatory Commission who is empowered to take up such grievances but not this Forum u/S 42(5) (6) of the Act. That apart this matter of giving domestic connection was entrusted to one contractor after depositing quotation money by the complainant but needless to mention that contractor on 20.03.2020 failed to give effect this connection of electricity, due to the objection of the neighbors of this customer because she resides at a very narrow congested area when no service cable could be installed without permission of the neighbors. Practically neighbors of this customer/complainant raised objection during execution of the work of installation. Neighbors said that their premises could not be utilized to effect this proposed connection. So in spite of best efforts, connection could not be given/done by the contractor and the meter has been returned by him as handed over by the department to him. This matter was duly intimated to the complainant by a letter dated 26.03.2020 and department asked her to submit proper way leave from the neighbors but she did not do that and knowing everything of such matter, only to harass the department she filed this case before this Forum.
Decision with Reasons
Now, in order to substantiate this claim of taking connection of electricity as domestic, this complainant examined herself where her entire statement on the complaint was related in writing with affidavit as evidence. This complainant was duly tested by the O.P.-Department/Officers through their questionnaires/interrogatories and its reply. Ld. Counsel of the complainant placed his argument with some citations such as
(a) 2018 AIR (Chhattisgarh) 98
(b) 2011 AIR (SC) 2897 and
(c) W.P. 22674(W) of 2010.
From the aforesaid citations Ld. Counsel of the complainant wanted to draw attention of this Commission on the Section 42 of Electricity Act where distribution licensee is duty bound to afford electricity in question as a constitutional right of any customer. We find though all the citations as cited by the Counsel are not similar to the state of affair of this case but principle of affording electricity by the distribution licensee are same in all citations as per Section 42 of Electricity Act.
His cream of argument as per citation is, “when the distribution licensee is obliged to supply electricity statutorily u/S. 43(1) of Electricity Act which is mandatory in nature and consequence of non supply of electricity is provided under 43(3) of said Act and when access to electricity is a human right subject to fulfillment of conditions under the electricity law and even it is a legal right to life under article 21 of the Constitution. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the complaint the department will follow the provisions of Section 67 of electricity act”
On the other dogma, the department of electricity by their W/V, nowhere denied the payment of quotation money by this customer/complainant or her non fulfillment of official requirements of taking electricity, their only plea is that the contractor as appointed by the department went to the spot but returned with allotted meter as not abling himself to stretch electric line up to the house of the complainant or customer since neighbors of the customer raised objection to place/fix any line throughout their houses/premises. Accordingly, way leave permission was defaulted and line could not be effective for electrification.
In the connection of such statement of the department, this Commission on hearing through the passage of evidences both oral and documentary finds that the department is very much reluctant or too much reluctant to prove their contentions about the dearth of way leave in respect of this customer. At this juncture, we opine firstly the department neither brought that very contractor who went to the spot before this Commission who could authenticate about his going to the spot and inability to stretch the line from the main street nor any objection of the neighbors about way leave placed before this Commission as any document that due to way leave or objection by the side-by-residence of the customer the work of electrification could not be done. ……….. So this contention about non fulfillment of way leave of the department is considered as a false statement by the department since it was not substantiated through any cogent document or oral evidence.
We find complainant repeatedly hinged before this Commission by her complaint as well as in writing evidence on facing tested method by the department that she repeatedly went to the department for her connection when department did not make her known that why they were not able to give or given any line or connection. Not only that before the Commission, at this stage of argument or trial, this complainant being an old aged lady said/stated that practically none of the neighbors raised any objection behind her taking of line when passage in front of her house was as wide as to stretching overhead line up to her residence but this electric department (O.Ps) intentionally not given it.
We the Commission observes this aforesaid statement of complainant or her Counsel must be relied, vividly when there no substantial opposition is received from the part of the department either by examining any contractor or filing any copy of letter dated 26.03.2020 where this complainant was refused to give connection on the dearth of way leave.
We further observe this complainant files some photocopies wherefrom it is noticed that there is a sufficient space of street remain in front of her house for drawing or to draw or to stretch electrical line through her frontage lane in clear portion.
SO In fine, we must observe, the O.Ps in the form of department or its officers failed to prove or to convince this Commission that there no unintentional latches at their part either by holding any local inspection for the inconvenience in fixing electric cable wire or any other difficulties as raised in their W/V. Mere submitting of papers as W/V or W.N.A. and without any cogent evidence behind those is not sufficient to prove their unintentional latches.
Accordingly, as per materials on record this complaint must get success when the complainant is considered as a valid consumer on depositing quotation money.
Electric Department (O.Ps) must install a pole throughout the wide street to her house even through stretching overhead cable line from the main street for installation of electric line.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Electric Department represented by O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are duty bound to give domestic electric connection within one month (30 days) of receipt this order by hook or by crook, since this complainant is a proper consumer on payment of quotation money, which was not returned or even quotation was not rejected by proper intimation to the customer till now. This department failed to prove Section 44 of the Electricity Act.
They are also liable to pay fine of Rs.100/-(Hundred) only per day, if the connection is not given within specified period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of final order.
Electric Department is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10, 000/-(Ten Thousand) only to the complainant.
This penalty of Rs.100/-(Hundred) only per day would be effected after 30 days from the date of receiving order if connection is not given by the Electric Department. But if within the specified time of 30 days, the Electric Department through the O.P.Nos.2 & 3 complied the same no penalty would be imposed save and except litigation cost.
In default,
Complainant is quite worthy to apply either u/S. 25 or Section 27 of the
Consumer Protection Act for execution of award as deem fit.
Let a copy of this or be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
Member Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
