DATE OF FILING : 23/09/2013 DATE OF S/R : 23/10/2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24/03/2014 SRI PROVAS MONDAL, son of late Nalin Mondal, by faith Hindu, by profession –Day labourer, of 83, Belilious Lane, Now I.R., Belilious Lane, P.S. & Dist Howrah---------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1) CESC Limited, Consumers’ Assistance Cell, CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 001. 2) The District Engineer, CESC Limited, Howrah Regional office, 433/1, G.T. Road (N), Howrah – 711 101. 3) Sri Sanjoy Shaw, S/O Jaharlal Shaw, 83, Belilious Lane, Now I.R. Belilious Lane, P.S. & Dist Howrah – 711 101. . -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, as amended up to date has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant and to restrain o.p. no. 3 from raising any obstruction against such installation. 2. The complainant applied for installation of new meter ( loop ) in the standard form before the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion as a tenant. The CESC Authority inspected the site on 02-03-2013, 24-04-2013, 15-05-2013 but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by o.p. no. 3, i.e., the son of the landlord and free access was not available to the existing meter board position. Finding no other alternative complainant has lodged this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. 3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 vide their written version stated that the complainant by filed an application on 25-02-2013 for 0.40 KW. domestic load. Attempts were made for conducting inspection at the complainant premises but could not accelerated due to objection raised by o.p. no. 3 i.e., son of the landlord for which free access was not available at the complainant premises. They have no objection for installation of new meter (loop) against the inspection followed by deposition necessary charges including restraining the o.p. no. 3. 4. The o.p. no. 3 vide their written version stated that the complainant has filed a petition for effecting new electric connection ( loop ) is not maintainable either in law or in fact. The answering o.p. no. 3 further stated that he has already obtained injunction order from the Civil Court in the T.S. No. 351 of 2013 where CESC has been made a party. The Hon’ble Civil Judge, Jr. Division, 3rd Court Howrah, has passed an order as ex parte for status quo in respect of the nature, character, possession and alienation of the suit property till 06-01-2014. The answering o.p. also stated that he has no intention to deprive the electricity to the petitioner on the contrary the petition unnecessarily creating trouble upon the o.p.no. 3 for which the said petition may be rejected on the ground for malafide intention to make the o.p. unnecessary harassed. 5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant applied before the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority after depositing Rs. 200/- as earnest money. It appears that o.p. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. no. 3 i.e., son of the landlord. It also visualized that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the installation of meter to the intending consumer i.e. complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and nor did they commit any unfair trade practice. Their inability to install the meter was due to objection raised by the o.p. no. 3 i.e., son of the landlord. We have also considered the written version of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but the fact remains that as the present situation the complainant cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be forced to live in darkness due to fictitious ground considering electricity is a need based requirement of a civilized person. 7. Therefore we are of the view that the prayer of the Complainant should be allowed in terms of Sec, 43(1) and 43(3) of electricity Act, 2003 where the sub section (3) of the said Section provides that a failure to effect of such supply within specified period would entitle penal consequences. It is, therefore, untenable in law to suggest that the statutory duty on the part of the licensee can be discharged for the failure of the complainant to provide necessary free access for supply of electric energy. In the event the licensee finds that there are obstruction or difficulties in effecting service connection and the applicant is unable to provide way leave, it would be the duty of licensee to undertake necessary works as provided under Part VIII of the Electricity Act,2003 read with the works of Licensee Rules, 2006 to ensure that such supply is effected . 8. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p., CESC Authority has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in tenanted portion ( herein so called complainant ) and that they are ready to complete the job if free access at the proposed premises is available with free of all incumbrances. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 334 of 2013 ( HDF 334 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed on contest against o.p. no. 3 without costs. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to install new separate meter after observing all technical formalities including site inspection together with deposition of service connection charges, security deposit etc. by the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 45 days from the date of this order. The o.p. nos. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the scheduled meter room portion. In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and o.p. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority shall approach to the local police station for help. No order as to compensation. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
