State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Anup Kr Saha vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 27 January, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO- FA/877/13 (Arisen out of Order Dt. 26/03/2013 in Case No. CC/150/2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah ) DATE OF FILING: 12.08.13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 27.01.2014 APPELLANT: 1. Sri Anup Kr. Saha Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Saha, Residing at North Ghoshpara, Rabindra Sarani, Bally, Howrah. RESPONDENT : 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Through its chairman, Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700 091. 2. Station Manager WBSEDC Ltd., Howrah Division, Durgapur Panchanantala, Bally P.S. Bally, Howrah- 711205 BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Mr Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Prasanta Benerjee, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Srijan Nayak., Ld. Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________________ : O R D E R :
MR. J.BAG, LD. MEMBER The present complaint is directed against the Order dated 26.03.2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in Complaint Case No. HDF 150 of 2012, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest against OP Nos. 1 & 2 .
The complaint case, in brief, was as follows :
The Complainant having purchased a flat in a newly constructed house under Mouza- Bally, J.L. No. 14 within Bally Nishinda Gram Panchayat at North Ghosh Para Rabindra Sarani, Khatian No. 5023 and Dag No. 3094 applied to the OPs on 09.09.2011 for a separate electric meter . After verifying all necessary documents the OPs accepted the application form and the Complainant duly paid a sum of Rs. 200/- as application money . The OPs inspected the Complainants flat within a fortnight but did not take any action for installation of new meter as applied for . The Complainant visited the office of the OP No.2 with the request for installation of the new meter on payment of service charge, security deposit etc. as required under the Electricity Act 2003. No action was taken by the OPs. They also refused to receive a letter dated .12.12.2011 from the Complainant. In the circumstances , he moved the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah.
The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 1 & 2 by filing of written version wherein it was , inter alia , asserted that one Mamtaj Begam being the developer/promoter of the building,applied on 09. 08. 2011 for common service connection for which a quotation was served on 28.03.2012 with the request, vide Memo No. BCCC 4236, to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,090/- along with Rs. 5,848/- as Security Deposit money. The required deposit not being made, the application of the Complainant for effecting the individual connection could not be effected and that they had no malafide intention to withhold the connection of the intending consumer.
Ld. Forum below after having considered the petition of complaint and in view of provision of Section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003, notwithstanding the fact that one Mamtaj Begam applied for effecting the common service connection in totality for pump , staircase and other common places connected to the concerned flats , observed that the quotation was issued , but as no payment was made by the said Mamtaj Begam , being the developer of the building , no connection was given to the individual applicant . It was also observed that the Complainant has a genuine demand . The complaint was allowed with a direction upon OP No.2 to revalidate the quotation communicated vide Memo No. BCC/4246 dated 28.03.2012 for further period of 30 days from the date of the Order, so that the connection can be effected against total demand of 17.74KW in the newly constructed building where the Complainant could be given electric connection. OP No. 2 was further directed to process the application of the Complainant so that the electric connection ( loop) through separate meter in a composite manner can be effected within 15 days after effecting the original connection for which application for a load of 17.74KW was received by the office of the OPs on 09.8.2011 .
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the Complainant/Appellant has brought up this case urging for modification of the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 with the prayer for direction upon the Respondents to provide separate electric meter to the Appellant / Complainant immediately .
We have gone through the Memo. of Appeal together with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the petition of complaint , deed of conveyance showing the purchase of a flat by the Complainant in his name from Shri Amit Bag and five others and written version filed by the OP / Respondent before the Ld. Forum below. BNA filed on behalf of Respondent, i.e., WBSEDCL has been gone through. LCR has been consulted.
Ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellant and the Respondents have been heard.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant/ Appellant is being harassed unnecessarily in spite of having duly applied for a new electric meter in his flat which stands in his own name. Electricity is an essential service and the Electricity Act is very much pro-consumer in so far as Section 43 of the Act provides that every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. There is a gross negligence on the part of the Respondent which is causing mental agony and inconvenience to the Complainant . The Appellant can not be kept waiting for the compliance of the order of the Ld. Forum below till payment of quotation money for installation of a transformer etc., in the new building where the Appellant has started living in his own flat without electricity.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP / Respondent submitted that the Complainant/ Appellant has already started an execution case vide HDF-EA Case No. 37 of 2013 accepting the order of the Ld. Forum below for execution of the said order. Ld. Forums order to revalidate the earlier quotation was complied with,but the developer of the building inspite of her having received the same did not come forward with the quotation money since revised as Rs. 1,76,276/- for service connection and Rs. 6,261/- as security deposit for installation of the transformer. It has also been argued that every flat owner of the multistoried building where the Complainant / Appellant lives in can not be provided individual separate service connection to avoid hazards and danger to the lives of the inhabitants . The policy decision of the Government of providing one service connection to single premises for catering electricity to the flat owners through common service connection has to be followed. There was no intentional withholding of service connection to the individual applicant who is found to have been living in a multi-storied building . The appeal does not stand substantiated with any deficiency in service or similar ground as may be cited against them with reference to the provision of the Consumer Protection Ac, 1986.
Decisions with Reasons There is no dispute that the Complainant/Appellant purchased a flat in a multi-storied building as mentioned in his petition of complaint and applied for an individual electric meter for his own flat . The OP / Respondents asserted that one Mumtaz Begum being the developer/promoter of the newly constructed building applied for common service connection in the said building where total demanded load was assessed to be 17.74 KW and though a quotation was raised and the same was intimated to the developer, the amount of Rs. 2,00, 90/- was not deposited and security deposit of Rs. 5,848/- not made.
As such , the total load bearing transformer could not be installed in the premises . The Complainant /Appellant denies that there was any such developer / promoter in the name of Mumtaz Begum (Paragraph 13 of the Affidavit of evidence ) who, according to the OP/ Respondents , applied for common service connection in the newly constructed building. Ld. Forums order to revalidate the quotation is looked upon by the Complainant / Respondent as misleading , as in the absence of such developer / promoter in the name of Mumtaz Begum,the quotation money would never be complied with. Though Sri Jiten Basak and two others were named as developer (vide Paragraph 7 of the Affidavit of evidence ) in respect of the premises in question, the Complainant did not agitate against such developer in the matter of having common electric service connection in the building. In fact, Ld. Forum, without going for consideration of that particular point, ordered that the lapsed quotation would be revalidated for a further period of 30 days. Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent during hearing of the appeal submitted that inspite of extension of validity of the quotation, since revised , in compliance with the order of the Ld. Forum below, no payment has been made and without such payment the installation of common service connection/transformer can not be made in the premises where the Complainant has purchased a flat .
There are definitely certain formalities for providing individual electric connection on the part of both the applicant and the service provider and payment for service connection etc., is the responsibility of the person who applies for such connection. Admittedly, the Complainant /Appellant is aware of that in so far as his statements vide Paragraphs 5 and 6 of his petition of complaint are concerned.He promises to pay necessary service charge and security deposit etc. If the position is that no developer / promoter or the owners from whom he purchased the flat was / were responsible for arranging common electric connection in the new building / the flat in question , such position being implied by non-joinder of parties in that regard in the original complaint , the Complainant himself becomes liable to bear the cost of installation of the new service connection . In such view of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant should be provided with individual electric connection in compliance of necessary formalities .
We are of the considered view that the impugned order should be modified Hence ordered that-
The appeal be and the same is allowed . The Respondents shall arrange to install individual meter in the flat of the Complainant/Appellant with due observance of all necessary formalities within a period of 90 days from the date of this order . There shall be no order as to costs.
LCR be returned to the Ld. Forum below .
Mr Jagannath Bag.
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member Member