WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD vs ARCHANA CHAKRABORTY

THE Order dated 14.6.94 passed in District Forum Case No. 3 of 1994 by the learned District Forum, South 24-Parganas, Alipore awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant /respondent has been assailed in this appeal by the Appellant/W.B.S.E.B.

THE Appellant/W.B.S.E.B. has challenged the order of the ground that the trial forum failed to appreciate mat the complaint of the Consumer/respondent and that it was without any basis and did not warrant any intervention in the matter by the Forum in any manner whatsoever and that the learned Forum failed to appreciate that the service line including the poles belongs the Appellant/W.B.S.E.B., although the value of the poles and other service charges were paid by the consumer/respondent inasmuch as that the consumer / respondent accepted the condition of the quotation where the Clause 4(11) categorically states that the service line remains the property of the Appellant/W.B.S.E.B. and that the Forum below did not apply its mind to the fact that all applications subject to approval of the Appellant/WBSEB before entitlement to new connection from this service station of the locality and/or any person irrespective of any objection and obstruction for which nobody could claim for compensation and damages and that the trial Forum failed to appreciate that Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked by claiming on hypothetical ground that she might suffer loss and damages if the electric connection is provided to some new applicants and that the trial Forum has acted without jurisdiction and that the impugned order passed by trial Forum is highly prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant/WBSEB whereby the revenue of the State and the nation could be mis-appreciated with such bias order. Lastly, the Appellant/WBSEB raised a very ridiculous ground that the consumer/respondent did not purchase the poles for the her connection but she bore the cost of 4 poles which were erected on the company passage to give connection at her premises. On the aforesaid ground the Appellant/ WBSEB prayed for setting aside of the order dated 14.6.94 passed by the learned District Forum, South 24-Parganas in D.F. Case No. 3 of 1994. The contention of the respondent is that the appeal has been filed on 7.9.94 against order dated 14.6.94 and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Further, the contention of the consumer/respondent is that the cost of all poles and service charges were borne by her as such the properties although belongs to the Appellant/WBSEB she has got equitable right to enjoy the service connection alone for her purposes. As per provisions of Section 54 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, it was incumbent upon the Appellant/Board that the meter switch gear and other equipments shall unless otherwise agreed to provided and maintained by the Appellant/WBSEB at its own cost and in the instant case as the Consumer/Respondent was made to bear all the costs for service poles and service charges who claimed equitable right for enjoyment of the said properties by her alone.

In the face of aforesaid pleading and/or counter pleadings by both the parties and going through the records, it appears to us that the impugned order was passed on 14.6.94 by the learned District Forum, 24-Parganas, Alipore and the appellant/WBSEB filed an application for certified copy on 2.8.94 and the certified copy was supplied to the Appellant/WBSEB on 6.9.94 and this instant appeal filed on 7.9.94.

FROM the above facts, it appears that the application for certified copy was filed beyond statutory period of limitation of 30 days, so the question of exclusion of the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 14.6.94 does not arise in the instant case. Accordingly the appeal stands time barred as it is being filed beyond statutory period of 30 days as per provisions of Section 15 of the C.P. Act and on this score alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed and rejected. On merit also the Appellant/WBSEB could not satisfy this Commission why the cost of the 4 poles and service charges were realised from the consumer/respondent when it is incumbent upon the Appellant/WBSEB to supply those things as per provisions of Section 54 of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

THE contention of the Appellant/WBSEB that the service line remains the property of the Appellant/WBSEB as per stipulated condition of the quotation form which is not disputed by the consumer/respondent. Her only contention is that when the value of the 4 poles and service charges were made to bear by her, she must have the right for absolute enjoyment of those things by her alone and when the Appellant/WBSEB by giving electric connection to some other party from the same service line then the must earn profits out of it, in that case why did she would the service poles and the service connection charges alone for installation of the service line to give electric connection to the consumer/respondent and equitably she claims compensation for compelling to pay cost of the poles and service charges amounting to Rs. 11,125/- in violation of the provisions of Section 54 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. We find subsistence in the argument put forward by the consumer/respondent and agree to that argument. We, therefore dismiss the appeal confirming the order of the learned District Forum, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in D.F. Case No. 3 of 1994.

CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to the cost. Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharya, President

THE short point that comes for decision in this appeal is whether the electric poles fitted by the licencee for supply of electricity to a particular consumer at his cost can be utilised by the licensee while giving electric connection to another consumer and if so, if the licensee is liable to compensate the first consumer at whose expenses the poles were purchased. THE complainant/respondent''s case is that she had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 11,125/- as the cost of four poles and incidental expenses while electricity who supplied to her by the West Bengal State Electricity Board (the appellant in this appeal and hereinafter referred to as the Board). THE complainant had prayed before the District, Forum, South 24-Parganas for giving direction to the Board that without her previous consent the Board cannot supply electricity to any other adjoining premises through those poles, alternatively, she had prayed for a direction upon the Board to refund the amount as compensation. THE claims of the complainant were contested by the Board whose contention was that the claim was not maintainable and that the poles supplied by the complainant became the property of the Board under the law and that no compensation could be paid for the utilisation of the poles for a subsequent supply of electricity to another consumer. The learned District Forum having heard the cases of both parties came to the conclusion that no direction as sought for by the complainant could be given to the Board. The Forum, however, held that the complainant''s alternative claim for compensation for utilising poles for other consumers was entertainable, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the West Bengal Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Accordingly, the Forum allowed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant/respondent. The present appeal is against the said order of the Forum.

The only point for determination in this appeal is if the order of the Forum allowing compensation against the Board is a correct one.

THE liability of a consumer to pay the cost of the service line to the licensee has been provided in sub-paragraph (b) of first proviso to Clause VI of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. THE said sub-paragraph lays down that the proposed consumer shall pay to the licensee, if so required, the cost of so much of any service line as may be laid down or placed for the purposes of the supply upon the property in respect of which the requisition is made and of such much of any service-line as it may be necessary for the said purposes to lay down or place beyond one hundred feet from the licensee''s distributing main, although not on that property. Hence the Board was justified in realising the cost of the poles while giving the service line in this case. Again Sub-clause (2) of Clause VI of the Schedule provides that any service line laid for the purpose of supply in pursuance of a requisition under Sub-clause (1) shall, notwithstanding that a portion of it may have been paid for by the person making the requisition, be maintained by the licensee who shall also have the right, to use it for the supply of energy to any other person. This answers the question posed by the respondent if the Board has any right to utilise the poles fixed at the cost of a previous consumer. Giving line to a subsequent consumer through the poles provided by previous consumer is, therefore, perfectly legal and the Board has no liability to pay any compensation for such utilisation. The learned District Forum''s order for payment of compensation to the complainant in this respect is, therefore, wholly unjustified.

THE learned District Forum has referred to the provisions of Section 54 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and has relied on those provisions for its order. THE said section provides that the Board shall have right to connect with the apparatus of a licensee any such correct meters, switch gear and other equipments as may be necessary to enable it to carry out the provisions of the Act and such meter, switch, gear and other equipments shall, unless otherwise agreed, be provided and maintained by the Board at its own cost. Here the word "Board" means the West Bengal State Electricity Board and the words Board and Licensee have two different meanings under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In the instant case if the Board itself was the licensee there is no question of connecting the meter, switch, gear and other equipments to be connected with the apparatus of a licensee excludes poles for giving the service line under Sub-clause (2) of Clause VI of the Schedule. THE learned District Forum has, therefore, apparently misinterpreted the scope of Section 54 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. From the above analysis of the legal position it would be clear that the order passed by the District Forum has not been a correct one. This appeal therefore succeeds. The order dated 14.6.94 passed by the Forum in D.F. Case No. 3/ 94 is set aside and the said case is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs either in the Forum or in the Appellate Court. Appeal dismissed.