West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/94/2010

Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.E.S.C. Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Asok Kumar Das.

16 Jun 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 94 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/01/2010 in Case No. 120/2009 of District Howrah DF , Howrah)
1. Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee.S/O Late Sudhakar Mukherjee. 34, Baje Shibpur Road. PO & PS. Shibpur, Dist. Howrah.2. Smt. Swapana Mukherjee.W/O Sri Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee. 34, Baje Shibpur Road. PO & PS. Shibpur, Dist. Howrah. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. C.E.S.C. Limited.represented by its Director, CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700001.2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd.433/1, G.T. Road (north) PS. Golabari, Dist. Howrah-711101.3. Sri Bilash Samanta.S/O Late Khaduram Samanta. 9/6, Nepal Saha Lane. PS. Shibpur, Howrah. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER MemberMR. SHANKAR COARI Member
PRESENT :Mr. Asok Kumar Das., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.Alok Mukhopadhyay.Mr.Monojit Bandyopadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

No. 4/16.06.2010

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Appellant through Mr. S. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through Mr. S. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 3 through Mr. Aloke Kr. Laha, the Ld. Advocate are present.  This is an appeal against the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by D.C.D.R.F., Howrah in Complaint Case No. HDF 120 of 2009 whereby the complaint was allowed and appropriate directions were given for giving new electric connection in the name of the Complainant at the tenanted premises of the Complainant.  The Appellant is the landlord – O.P.   The sole contention of the Appellant is that the parties are already involved in a civil proceeding wherein interim order has been passed in favour of the tenant and the appeal against the said interirm order before the Appellate Court has given protection to the tenant and, therefore, the present complaint on the self same cause of action is not maintainable.  We have heard Mr. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate for the C.E.S.C. and Mr. Laha, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant – tenant.  On perusal of the records we are of the opinion that the civil suit is pending between the landlord and tenant for eviction of the tenant from the tenant premises.  Neither the interim order nor the appellate order alters the scope of the suit.  Therefore, we find that by virtue of interim order and the appellate order from the interim order the right of the tenant only to get a fresh connection and not reconnection of the earlier electricity supply disconnected some time back, was upheld.  In the circumstances the proceeding before the Forum for relief of fresh connection does not appear to be on the same cause of action which is involved in the said civil suit.

 

There being no other contention advanced we are of the opinion that the impugned order is required to be confirmed.  There is no irregularity.  Accordingly the appeal fails and the impugned order is affirmed.  The parties are directed to co-operate in the matter of implementation of the said order.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 16 June 2010

[HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI]PRESIDENT[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member[MR. SHANKAR COARI]Member