National Consumer Disputes Redressal
CESE Limited vs Anjan Dey And Ors.
DATE: 23 May, 2007
Citations: III (2007) CPJ 289 NC
Bench: K G Member, P Shenoy
ORDER P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Issue to be decided in this case is whether it is technically and legally feasible for the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. (CESC) to give a new connection to the complainant by installing a new meter in the tenanted portion, to run a restaurant. The answer to this question is “Yes”.
Facts of the case:
2. The complainants run a restaurant at Rash Behari Avenue as tenants. The electric power was disconnected to the restaurant on 18.6.1995 at the instance of the landlord, who put a padlock in the meter box.
3. The contention raised by the CESC before the District Forum was that they were not disinclined to give the connection and they are obstructed because of the padlock of the meter box. The District Forum directed opposite party CESC to give a new connection to the complainant by installing a new meter preferably in the tenanted portion comprising restaurant, if technically feasible, subject to compliance of the formalities by the complainants within one month. Instead of installing a new meter and supplying the power, CESC filed an appeal before the State Commission.
4. During hearing of the appeal the appellant submitted that there is no provision to give two separate supplies in the same premises and separate connection cannot be arranged in the tenanted portion ignoring the obstruction of the landlord. In case the landlord had any objection he should have appeared before the State Commission which he did not do, neither he submitted any written version. There was no doubt that the complainants were entitled for separate connection. Accordingly, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum.
5. Aggrieved by this order, CESC has filed this revision.
Submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner:
6. According to law and as per the amended conditions of supply, there is no provision to give two separate supplies in one premises and he argued that new connection separately cannot be arranged in the tenanted portion ignoring the obstructions of the landlord.
7. He also submitted that it is unjust and improper to compel revision petitioner to execute an order, which is practically impossible. Further, he read the Conditions of Supply 3 (a) and 3 (d) as amended on 15.5.2000 by the Government of West Bengal issued under Section 21 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which read as follows:
3(a) Upon receipt of the application, notice will be sent to the consumer or to the wiring contractor acting on the consumer’s behalf, for his representative to meet the licensee to agree upon the position of the supply service, cut-outs and meters. The lincensee will decide whether a separate service will be given to each consumer on any premises or whether a supply to all consumers in any premises will be given through separate meters from a common service installed on the premises. The position shall be such that the lincensee’s employees may have ready and easy access to it. The lincensee will in no case fix his meters and cut-outs, nor allow the same to remain, in any position which entails entry by his employees into Purdah or religious quarters. Should the cut-outs and meter board be fixed in a locked room or enclosure, the necessary keys must be kept available on the premises.
3(d) One service line only will be provided for any one premises. In the case of more than one consumer desiring to take supply from a common service and terminal, a separate installation for each must be provided and controlled by separate main switch and cut-out placed in the position agreed to by the lincensee, where the meter is to be fixed from low voltage. For supply at medium voltage/high voltage/extra voltage, only one service line shall be provided to any single premises.
He further argued that CESC has about 16 lakh of consumers and it is impossible to keep an electrical diagram of each and separate house or premises and, therefore, the employees of CESC rely upon the primary and basic rule that there will be one service to one building/premises and if the single main switch is shut off the building in its entirety is rendered electrically cutout. The lincensed contractor and the electricians also proceed on this basis and it is the usual experience of ordinary electrical workmen and Mistries.
8. He quoted the judgment in writ petition No. 1225 of 1988 in Analysts Management Private Ltd. and Ors. v. CESC Limited and Ors. delivered on 12.7.1999 where an application was made for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Limited to allot separate direct meters to each of the petitioners and all other intending unit holders within one week. The issue involved in this case is whether low tension supply can be granted in a building connected with High Tension Electricity. This application was dismissed.
9. He quoted the judgment in Rajesh D. Darbar v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni . The Supreme Court held “where the nature of the relief, as originally sought, has become obsolete or unserviceable or a new form of relief will be more efficacious on account of developments subsequent to the suit or even during the appellate stage, it is but fair that the relief is moulded, varied or reshaped in the light of updated facts provided the party claiming the relief or change of relief must have the same right from which either the first or the modified remedy may flow. Further where the relief is discretionary, Courts may exercise this jurisdiction to avoid injustice.”
Submissions of learned Counsel for the respondent:
10. He quoted the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 9.12.1997 wherein it was directed that CESC is to give a new connection to the complainants by installing a new meter preferably in the tenanted portion comprising the restaurant, if technically possible. In this connection it is worthwhile looking into the letter of CESC dated 4.2.1998 wherein it is mentioned the nature of supply as LV (low voltage) and they have received money for connecting the low voltage electricity on 30.3.1998 wherein they have written to the complainant Anjan Kumar Dey as follows:
We refer to your application for electricity at the above address and are pleased to inform you that we are agreeable to provide supply for a total connected load of 0.00 KW. You will be required to pay a sum of Rs. 2000.00 comprising Rs. 60.00 as service charge and Rs. 1940.00 as security deposit. Before we can forward our bill for the above amount for settlement we would advise you to complete the following requirements and inform us thereafter along with your acceptance of our charge. Please also let us know whether you will collect the bill which will be available within 48 hours, across the counter directly, or you would like us to forward the same to you at the above mailing address.
11. And in response to this, CESC Ltd. has issued a receipt on 3.3.1998 (photocopy of the same is submitted by the complainant). This indicates that they were agreeable to provide this low voltage supply to the complainant as far back as 4.2.1998 after the District Forum order. Despite payment of this money CESC did not take action to provide electricity. Three years thereafter CESC wrote a letter on 9.2.2001 to the complainant as follows:
Dear Sir, Further to your payment of our charges, we have to inform you that, our men called at the above premises to carry out the work but could not do so as objection was raised at site. We would therefore request you to inform us in writing after having the dispute settled.
12. And only on 5.12.2003 through a letter they have given power to the complainant. This shows the mala fide intention of the CESC. In their reply to the execution petition filed before the Commission they have stated that they did not give power to the complainant as the landlord has objected. Sections 3(a) and (d) are not applicable as this is a case of low voltage connection.
Findings:
13. First of all it is very clear that as per the direction of the District Forum and the State Commission, CESC was to provide new connection, to the complainant and a new meter preferably in the tenanted portion, if technically feasible, subject to compliance of the formalities. They could have easily complied with this order because there was no direction to provide a new line. Using the same electricity line which was provided to the building they could have given a new connection. May be the landlord had objected, so to cover up their fault/delay they have invented a new logic, Perusal of Sections 3(a) and (d) clearly shows that they are not applicable to this case, Hie Section 3(A) only talks, about issuing of notice to the consumer for fixing service and meter to the consumer or to the wiring contractor acting on the consumer’s behalf, it does not say debar provision of electricity to a bona fide consumer. Similarly, Section 3(d) is applicable only for supply of medium voltage/high voltage/extra voltage for which only one service line shallbe provided in any single premises and not related to low voltage connection. The judgment quoted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1225 of 1998 is not applicable to the instant case because in this case the issue is not whether a low tension supply can be granted in abuilding connected in a high tension electricity.
14. Now, we come to the letter of CESC addressed to the landlord on 5.12.2000 wherein they have stated by an order dated 9.12.1997 District Forum was pleased to direct CESC to provide meter supply in favour of the complainant at the above premises and they have stated that if he does not cooperate CESC will be compelled to disconnect the supply. They have marked a copy of the same to the officer-in-charge Tollygunge P.S. This shows the CESC has complied with the order of the District Forum only in 2003.
15. Hence, we hold that there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower Fora. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner shall pay Rs. 20,000 as costs. This exemplary cost is imposed because the complainants are made to suffer without electricity for several years and also were made run up to all the three Fora in search of justice.
