FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
In a narrow compass complaint case is about deficiency of services and negligence of the O.P.s meted out towards the Complt. The Complt., a handicapped person (details provided in Annexure-A) has been residing with his ailing mother, and brother’s family at his residence at Bagnan, Howrah. The Complt. alleges that there has been no electricity at his premises since few years. The O.P.s, despite several requests have turned a deaf ear to the matter. The Complt. further alleges, that even after an application of meter to the O.P.s, and a subsequent assurance by the O.P.s to carry out an enquiry at his premises, and payment of all fees and charges for the meter and connection, no electric connection has been provided to the Complt. The Complt. has reported against severe harassment, mental and physical agony against the O.P.s. Finally, Complt. has filed the instant case paying to this Commission for:
- An order directing the O.P.s to supply meter and electricity to the Complt.’s premises/meter room with the aid of police.
- An order directing the O.P.s to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complt. for negligence and harassment and ill motives of the O.P.s.
- An order directing the O.P.s to pay litigation cost amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complt.
- Any other reliefs as deemed fit by this Commission.
The O.P.s have contested this case by filling w.v. mentioning inter alia on the point of non-maintainability of the case in law and also in facts. The O.P.s have denied all material allegations made by the Complt. against them. The O.P.s have mentioned that the Complt. is not at all a consumer of the O.P.s as per the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 and no cause of action arises against them. The O.P.s have alleged that the Complt. is only making up stories and arranging false claims to escape from the hands of law and to throw dust to the eyes of the Ld. Forum. The answering O.P.s have mentioned that the verification as well as the affidavit of the petition is not in conformity with the provisions as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and the instant case is liable to be rejected on that point. The O.P.s have clarified that the Complt. applied for new domestic connection before the office of O.P.2, and accordingly paid the quoted amount on 06.11.2017. On 24.11.2017, during physical inspection at the premises of the Complt., the men of O.P.2 did not find any separate establishment at the premises and suffered strong physical objection from Shivnath Mondal and Ashoke Mondal. Despite several requests by O.P.2, the Complt was unable to submit the way-leave clearance. However, O.P.2 visited the premises of the Complt. again on 05.09.2018 for further inspection, only to find the persisting problem. O.P.2 has stated that it is a creature of statute and it has no intentions of harassing the Complt., provided all the conditions are favorable. As a result, the O.P.s have prayed to this Commission for dismissal of the case with cost.
Point for 1jdecision
- Is the Complt. entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
- On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it reveals that no doubt Complt. is a consumer of the O.P.s, under section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Complt. appears to be a resident within district Howrah, and the offices of addresses of O.P.1 is in Saltlake, Kolkata and the office of O.P.2 is in district Howrah. Considering the nature of the case and the prayers of the Complt., it straightway gives clear signal that the pecuniary value of the case is within Rs. 20,00,000/- that is within the limits of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial / pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
- Now, it is very pertinent to mention that Complt. declared himself as physically handicapped and in support of such contention photocopy of disability certificate has also been filed. Further it is to be noted that since few years Complt. and his family members have been suffering for electricity and accordingly Complt. has applied for new electric meter by depositing fees and other charges amounting to Rs. 848/-.
- O.P.s in their w.v. has categorically mentioned that for domestic connection at the residential house of the Complt. as per quotation Complt. has submitted the service charge and security money. So it becomes an undisputed fact that Complt. paid the service charge and security money for availing new meter at his premises.
- Now it is the version on the O.P.s that after visiting the house of Complt., the men of O.P.2 found no separate establishment at the premises of the Complt. and during such inspection there was strong physical objection on behalf of Shivnath Mondal and Ashoke Mondal relating to installation of new electric connection at the said premises.
- It may be concluded that Complt. filed evidence on affidavit highlighting, the narration as he made in his petition of Complt. B.N.A. has also been filed by Complt.
- Section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003 is the main provision casting an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Sub-Section –(I) of Section 43 of the said Act enjoyance upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of such premises, as the case may be within one ,month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Therefore, the only point that has to be looked into whether the Complt. has tenancy right or if he is an occupant of the premises in question or not.
The materials on records inspire our confidence in harboring to the conclusion that there is enough evidence that Complt. has tenancy rights and he is residing at the premises in question and he is an occupier of the same.
At present Right To Electricity is a constitutional right under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We may recall a reported decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in 2011(2) CHN768 (Abhimanyu Mazumdar-Vs-Superintending Engineer And Another) that is a full bench decision ofHon’ble High Court, Calcutta wherein it is observed that a person in settled position ofproperty is free to apply for supply of electricity without consent of the owner and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he/she is evicted by due process of law.
Therefore, for argument sake even if we accept that so called Shivnath Mondal and Ashoke Mondal raised any objection what-so-ever in installing new electric connection at the premises of Complt. that objection itself is illegal and to the mind of this Commission (Formerly Forum), O.P.s should ignore the same to uphold the sanctity of law prevailing in our state relating to have connection of new electric meter.
We should keep in mind that the Act being a social beneficial legislation and it is our duty to take a liberal view to achieve the avowed object to protect the interest of consumer. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we are constrained to hold Complt. has succeeded to prove his case.
Hence,
It is,
ORDERED
That the instant case no. 280/2018 is allowed on contest against O.P.1 and O.P.2 with cost.
The O.P.s are categorically directed to install new electric meter connection to the premises in question within 45 days from the date of this order.
S.P. Rural district of Howrah Police Commissionerate is hereby categorically directed for rendering Police assistance at the time of effecting new electric meter connection at the premises in question. without fail. The Complt. will bear the cost of such police assistance.
Let free copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sankar Kumar Ghosh
President, D.C.D.R.C.
Howrah.
Babita Chaudhuri Sankar Kumar Ghosh
Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
