DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,HOOGHLY
C.D.F CASE NO. 68 OF 2008
Sri Sanjib Karmakar
of Khamarpara Bakultala Lane,
P.O.Bansberia, P.S.Chinsurah,
Dist.Hooghly …. Petitioner
-vs-
1. Station Manager,
Bansberia Group Electric Supply,
WBSEDCL,
P.O.Bansberia,
P.S.Mogra,
Dist.Hooghy
2. Divisional Manager,
Chandernagore (D) Division,
WBSEDCL, 147, G.T.Road,
2nd floor, Court More,
Barabazar, P.O. & P.S.Chandernagore,
Dist.Hooghly. …. Opp.Parties
Present : S .Basu … Member
R.Roychowdhury Malakar …. Member
ORDER NO. 18 DATE 30.7.2009
The case of the complainant is that he along with his family is in lawful possession in the occupied portion of the property as mentioned in the schedule. The property originally belonged to his grand father.There is an existing electric connection in the said premises.The electric connection was originally in the name of his grand father Provat Chandra Karmakar, now deceased. After his death the connection was converted in the name of Smt.Tulsi Karmakar who is his aunt and the said electric connection is being enjoyed by Smt.Tulsi Karmakar and her family members with whom an enemitical relation has grown with him. The petitioner submits there is no electric connection in his occupied portion and he approached the office of OP 1 on 24.2.2008 for taking a connection in his occupied portion where he is lawfully residing since the time of his father with his family members, but the op l refused to issue any prescribed form on the plea that since there is an existing line in that premises his petition cannot be entertained .The op 1 issued one reply asking him to obtain an order from the competent court of law to get connection .The complainant submits that such reply is tantamount to refusal by the op 1. He also states that by filing the application before the OP Electricity Board he impliedly promised to comply necessary formalities and pay requisite charges and thus became a consumer under OP 1. He also submits that according to Section 43 of Electricity Act he has every right to get an electric connection. Since the OPs are refusing him there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. In the circumstances, the complainant submits a prayer for a direction upon the OP to provide electric connection in his favour in the property mentioned in the schedule and awarding compensation and other cost etc.
The oP contested the case and filed a W.V. in which it denied all material allegation against it. The OP 1 submits that the petitioner is not a consumer within 1(d) of Section 2 of C.P.Act and as such he has no locus stand to file this case. The oP 1 denies that the petitioner approached its office on 24.2.2008 for taking new connection in his name at his occupied portion and op 1 refused to provide electricity to the petitioner. Op 1 also denies that the complainant filed any application before it for getting electric connection. The op 1 puts the reason that since no application has been submitted by complainant so Section 43 of I.E.Act 2003 is not applicable in case of the petitioner. The Op 1 also denies that the petitioner on 8.4.07 went to his office and it refused to give him electric connection. The oP 1 thus submits that it had no deficiency in service and there was no cause of action on the part of the complainant and hence this petition of the complainant should be dismissed with cost.
The complainant and OP 1 filed their respective evidence along with their respective copies of relied documents. Upon the pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration.
i) Whether the complainant is a consumer under provision of C.P.Act.
ii) Whether the consumer is an occupier in the suit property
iii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the oPs
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASON:
ISSUE NO.1
The Op alleges in its para 3 and para 11 of W.V. that the complainant is not a consumer under C.P.Act in as much as he did not file any petition before Op for the purpose of getting electric connection. The complainant on the other hand stated in his complaint petition as well as in his affidavit of evidence that he sent an application before OP 1 for electric connection.
From the record we came to learn that the complainant filed a copy of his prayer for getting electric connection before OP 1 on 24.3.2008 and not on 24.2.2008 which was received by the office of oP 1 on the same date vide no.805. The complainant also annexes a copy of the reply of Op 1 addressed to him dated 24.3.2008 vide no. BNS/1836 against the petition of the complainant for new electric connection. As such, from the record per se it is established beyond doubt that the complainant actually sent an application to OP 1 for new electric connection and any argument or statement of Op 1 as in its WV opposing the above contention of the complainant is not based on fact and therefore, is not acceptable.
That apart, from the copy of the application of the complainant dated 24.3.08 we see that he made an undertaking to the effect that he was ready and willing to deposit the requisite charges and he will abide by the rules and regulations of the Electric Deptt. If this is so there is no reason as to why the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer. It is a well settled principle that as soon as one expresses in writing to get a new service connection and promises to pay all cost of such service connection he steps into the shoes of a consumer. We have before us a decision of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case between CESC -Vs- R.Banerjee (CTJ) page 78wherein it was held by the learned State Commission that a person making a mere application for connection at his premises becomes a consumer when he promises to pay necessary charges for the connection and thus, hires the service of the company for consideration .In this instant case when the complainant admittedly sent an application for a new electric connection at his premises on a promise to pay requisite fees and the said application was responded by the OP, though adversely , vide its reply no.BNS/1836 dated 24.3.08 he becomes a consumer under C.P.Act. Consequently we hold that the complainant is indeed a Consumer under the provision of C.P.Act.
ISSUE NO. II
In support of the occupancy at the suit property the complainant has filed a copy of Epic Card vide no.WB/27/187/567772 and a copy of Antaday Ration Card vide no.2A009737 issued by Rationing Officer dated 4.3.03 and a copy of a residential certificate issued by Sri Monoj Bhattacharya, Councilor, Bansberia Municipality dated 9.4.08. So from the above documents the complainant is regarded as an occupier in the suit property.
ISSUE NO.III
The complainant alleges deficiency in service against Op when it despite receipt
his application for getting an electric connection did not provide the same. The OP on the other hand, denied filing of such application to its office by the petitioner and argued in its WV that in absence of any application, Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 was not applicable in this case.
Perused the documents as filed by the complainant in a firisti. From the record it is clearly established that the complainant submitted an application for getting electric connection to OP dated 24.3.08 for which he is regarded as a consumer under C.P.Act. And from the records and documents filed by the complainant it is also found that the complainant is an occupier of some portion of the mentioned property which is his ancestral property. Therefore, there is no reason as to why Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act , 2003 shall not be application in case of the petitioner. As per Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 even an occupier is entitled to get Electricity at his premises. Here the complainant being an occupier of some portion of his ancestral property cannot be denied his right for getting electricity at his occupied portion where he has been living for several years with his family. The OP has not submitted any documents or evidence from which it can be gathered that it ever made any enquiry on the spot and assessed the situation. Therefore, we hold that the oP is guilty of deficiency in service when they did not take any positive action as per provision of Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
ISSUE NO.IV
In the result, the petition of the complainant succeeds and he is entitled to get
relief as prayed for .
Hence it is ordered
that the present complaint petition U/s 12 of the C.P. Act be and the same is allowed against the OP on contest. Op WBSEDCL, is directed to give electric connection to the complainant at his occupied portion on the suit property as mentioned in the schedule of the petition after observing all rules and regulations in this respect and upon taking payment of all requisite fees and charges from the complainant on the condition that the complainant shall ensure free access to OP from the nearest electric pole upto the meter board position for the purpose of giving electric connection effectively.
All the aforesaid work should be completed within 30 days from the date of order
in default, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as is available under law.
No order is given regarding cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.