DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO. 122 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
05.08.2019 20.08.2019 31.12.2020
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member: Jagdish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Sri Samar Roy, son of late Surendra Lal Roy, residing at Nangi Gumo Shawpara, Post Bata Nagar, P.S Maheshtala, District- South 24-parganas.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. CESC Limited, South West Regional Office at P-18, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088.
2. Sukumar Roy, son of late Sukhendra Lal Roy at E5-71/255/1-2, Nangi Gumo Shaw Para , P.O Batanagar, P.S Maheshtala, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.
One Samar Roy herein after referred to as Complainant has filed the case against CESC Ltd and one Sukumar Roy herein after referred to as the Ops praying for orders against the OPs.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of premises no.E5-71/255/1-2, Nangi Gumo Shaw Para, P.O Batanagar, P.S Maheshtala, District- South 24-Parganas by virtue of a mutual partition between the father and uncle of the complainant.
That by virtue of two registered deed in 1965 -1985 the father of the complainant Sri Sukhendralal Roy and the uncle of the complainant purchased a property jointly. Subsequently, they mutually partitioned the property by demarcating their portion by a common passage in 1988.
That O.P-2 constructed meter room in his portion and the complainant has applied for electric service and paid Rs.16,982/- on 18.6.2019 for getting electric connection in his name.
That on 22.6.2019 the O.P No. 1 came to install service connection but, the O.P-1 could not give electric connection to the complainant due to resistance by the O.P-2. The complainant has prayed for a direction upon the O.P-1 for giving immediate electric connection by giving a restraining order upon the mO.P-2 and his men and agents from creating disturbance to the CESC workmen at the time of installation of electric service.
The O.P-1 contested the case by filing written version on 21.11.2019 ,contending that the allegations against the O.p-1 is not correct. The O.P-1 admitted that O.P-1 went to the premises of the complainant for inspection work and installation of electricity, but the O.P-2 and others raised a strong objection, for which the O.P-1 could not install electric connection. The O.P-1 has asked the complainant to submit way-leave as the O.P-1 is not liable to give electric connection , if any objection is raised. The O.P-1 has stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1.
The O.P-2 did not turn up in spite of service of notice, for which the case has been heard ex parte against him.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :-
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Has the O.p-1 any deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get electric connection, as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1 :-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as he applied for electric connection on payment of requisite fees for getting electric connection in the premises of the complainant. It is further argued that the O.P-1 has admitted that the complainant has applied for electricity on payment of requisite fees.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate of the O.P-1 submits that the complainant applied for electric supply on payment of requisite fees , but the O.P-1 could not install electric connection due to resistance raised by the O.P-2
On a careful consideration over the written complaint, written version and submission of both sides, we find that the complainant is a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point Nos. 2 & 3:-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection and the O.P-1 is duty bound to give electric connection to the complainant but the O.P-2 raised objection on flimsy ground. It is urged that the O.P-1 intended to give electric connection through underground cable through a common passage to the premises of the complainant but the service connection could not be effected due to objection raised by the O.P-2. He prays for a direction upon the O.P-1 to give electric connection with the help of police.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the O.P-1 submits that O.P-1 is ready and willing to give electric connection to the complainant on condition that the complainant shall submit way-leave permission. He submits that the O.P-1 has no deficiency in service.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. The O.P-2 did not turn up in spite of service of notice. The O.P-1 has stated that the men of O.P-1 intended to install underground cable through a common passage for giving electric connection to the complainant. In that case, the O.P-2 should have no legal ground to raise objection.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record and the submission of the Ld. Advocates of both sides, we find that the men of the O.P-1 went to the premises of the complainant for installation of service connection through a common passage but they could not complete the work due to resistance raised by the O.P-2 and others.
Hence , we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P-1 has no deficiency in service as they intended to give electric connection to the complainant but .the complainant is entitled to get electric connection and the O.P-1 is duty bound to give electric connection , subject to compliance of all formalities.
In our considered opinion, the O.P-1 may be directed to give electric connection to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order after observing necessary formalities and receiving the requisite fees, if any, from the complainant. We find no ground to raise objection by the O.P. No.1.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P-1 without cost and allowed exparte against the O. P No.2.
The O.P-1 is directed to give electric connection to the complainant at his premises by 30 days from the date of this order after observing necessary formalities and on receiving requisite fees, if any, from the complainant. The O.P. No. 2 is directed not to disturb installation of electricity at the premises of the Complainant through underground common passage
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
