VISWANATH PATODIA vs D.E. (SOUTH DISTRICT), C.E.S.C. LTD.

HEARD learned Counsels of both sides. The appeal is directed against order dated 23.12.1997 disposing of the execution case with the observation that the disputed premises is catered to by high voltage bulk supply in the name of M/s. Jenny Christensen (Service Apartment) Ltd. The Forum noticed further that the dispute was between the complainant and the said Company and the C.E.S.C. has no liability to comply with the order of the Forum dated 17.2.1997. This order has been assailed by the complainant on the ground that the vendor of the flat in question is charging higher rate for consumption of electric energy than what is normally required to be paid by him as he has been using the flat in question for domestic purpose.

BOTH sides addressed the Commission on various aspects of the matter. It emerged during hearing that one of the conditions of supply was to the following effect : "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 licensee, where the meter must be fixed from Low Voltage. For supply at Medium Voltage/High Voltage/Extra High Voltage, only one service line shall be provided for any single premises."

The learned Counsel for the respondent has furnished us with a copy of note : "Quite often disputes arise between the High Tension registered consumer and any occupant of premises over supply of electricity and the Company is confronted with applications from the individual occupants for a separate metered supply. There is no scope for considering such applications for separate meters in an HT supply. It is a single point metering system and the question of installing a separate LT/MV supply in such premises also does not arise due to technical constraints and reasons of safety. Expense of more than one mode of supply in given premises is hazardous to human life and property and, therefore, the Company does not instal more than one service in a given premises as a matter of routine. There have been a number of litigations on this account in various Courts including the High Court, Calcutta and the Courts have held the view that since the matter of installation involves technical considerations and the licensee has the technical expertise and competence, the decision should be taken by the licensee".

He submits that in view of the technical aspects of the matter and the fact that the conditions of supply do not permit a separate meter in a premises which is connected by High Voltage supply, the prayer of the complainant cannot be acceded to. On a reference to these documents and the conditions of supply more particularly the portion which has been quoted hereinabove, we think that the complainant cannot get any relief before this Commission. The appeal cannot, therefore, succeed which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.