LALIT KARMAKAR vs MADAN KARMAKAR

-THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, on 29.4.2003 in the Case No. 139/2002, wherein the Forum below has allowed the case on contest without cost and directed the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to provide separate electric connection in the premises of the complainant within one month from the date of order.

THE brief facts of the case of the complainant before the Forum below that he applied for installation of separate electric connection in his name at his residence to the W.B.S.E.B. on 24.6.2000. After inspection of the site the W.B.S.E.B. issued a quotation for a sum of Rs. 5,236/-. THE complainant deposited the entire amount but the W.B.S.E.B. did not instal the separate meter in his name. He made several requests and correspondences with the W.B.S.E.B. but in vain. THE W.B.S.E.B. failed to perform its duty in collusion with the other co-sharers (O.P. Nos. 4-10). THEre was a common passage for entering into the residential house of the complainant and through that common passage the W.B.S.E.B. could easily draw a line for installation but due to the resistance of the O.P. Nos. 4-10 the W.B.S.E.B. could not instal the separate meter in his name through that common passage by erecting the electric pole. According to the complainant the O.P. Nos. 4-10 have no right to create disturbance. THEreafter the complainant filed the case before the Forum below praying for direction upon the W.B.S.E.B. for installation of separate meter in his name and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the above mentioned order the appellant-Lalit Karmakar has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that erection of pole in that common passage will create obstruction for entering the vehicle and that passage is very narrow for erection of a pole. According to the appellant the impugned judgment passed by the Forum below is erroneous, unjust and liable to be set aside.

The learned Counsel for the W.B.S.E.B. has submitted that it has no objection to provide separate connection by installation of the meter but due to the resistance of other co-sharers the W.B.S.E.B. prople could not perform its duties. The W.B.S.E.B. are ready to perform the work provided the respondent will provide the W.B.S.E.B.-people necessary way to leave.

ON careful perusal of the impugned judgment and hearing the submission of the parties it is noticed by us that the respondent applied for installation of separate electric meter in his name. After receiving his application the W.B.S.E.B. inspected the site and issued a quotation. The respondent paid the entire quotational amount. But due to the resistance raised by the present appellant and other co-sharers the W.B.S.E.B.-people could not instal the separate meter in the name of the respondent by erecting a pole. In this regard the appellant''s version is that it is an admitted fact that there is common passage, through which the line may be drawn by erecting a pole, but that passage is very much narrow and if a pole is erected by the W.B.S.E.B. then it will create obstruction in entering vehicles through that common passage. The W.B.S.E.B. has submitted that it is willing to instal separate meter in the name of the respondent. We know that electricity is very essential in everyday life and in the instant case the appellant is living without electricity for a prolonged period. So in our opinion installation of electric meter by erecting a pole is very much necessary and important than entering of the vehicle through that passage. In this respect we may refer to a judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140, where Hon''ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Ganguly has held that "the expression ''life'' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in civilized society. The right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of ''life'' under Article 21." His Lordship further held "in the current day realities of growing consumerism electricity is an essential requirement. If a person is willing to obtain supply of electricity on payment of necessary charges to the licensee and the licensee is willing to supply electricity, the right of such person to get electricity must be construed keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances our considered view is that the respondent has the right to enjoy electricity from a separate meter. Hence it is ordered that the W.B.S.E.B. shall erect a pole in the common passage and draw the electric line for installation of the separate service connection to the respondent No. 1 within 20 days from the date of getting this order. The appellant is directed not to create any resistance during the time of erection of the pole and installation of the separate service connection to the respondent No. 1.

WITH the above observations the appeal is dismissed on contest but however without any cost. The appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal dismissed.