DATE OF FILING : 10-04-2013. DATE OF S/R : 20-05-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-08-2013. Srimanta Chakraborty, son of Sri Pankaj Chakraborty, residing at 40/7, Bisswesar Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. CESC Ltd. , a company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700001. 2. Deputy Chief Engineer ( Distribution ), CESC Ltd., Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. 3. District Engineer, Howrah, Howrah Regional Office, 443/1, G.T. R oad ( N ), Howrah – 711101. 4. Saktipada Mondal, son of S. Mondal. 5. Smt. Chandana Mondal, wife of Swapan Kr. Mondal, no. 4 & 5, residing at 40/7, Bisswesar Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, District- Howrah.---------------------------------------------------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 filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended against O.P. nos. 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C .P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 for effecting new electric service connection through separate meter together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. nos. 1 to 3 in spite of observing the necessary formalities including deposition of MASD bills by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free /easy access to the complainant premises. 2. The o.p. nos. 1 to 3 i.e., CESC Authority in their written version admitted the facts regarding deposition of MASD Bills, execution of agreement etc. The O.P. nos. 1 to 3 have given his best efforts to effect the new service connection to the complainant premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by the O.P. no. 4 & 5, that the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 i.e., CESC Authority is ready and willing to effect the new service connection if free access is available at the complainant premises with the assistance of civil authority. 3. The O.P. no. 4 on the other hand through their written version stated that He is a tenant under the landlord of the premises namely Gita Deyaswi and the complainant bypassing the landlord put this answering O.P. as an obstructer for installation of electric meter at his tenanted premises for which this answering O.P. is not in a position to allow the complainant to install electric connection in his tenanted room which may cause one of the ground of his eviction for which the case is liable to be rejected and there is no merit in the complaint. 4. Notice was served to the O.P. no. 5 but none appears on behalf of the O.P.no. 5 nor files any written version for which ex parte was heard against the O.P. no. 5. 5. Upon pleadings of all parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 to 3 ? 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. Since the complainant deposited the quotational money against the MASD Bill under the head of new service connection charge and security deposit to the O.P. nos. 1 to 3 i.e., CESC Authority and the O.P. nos. 1 to 3 is willing to effect the new service connection, the objection raised by O.P nos. 4 & 5 cannot stand for effecting the proposed service connection in accordance of provision U/S 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or a part thereof, the petitioner has a statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give him electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation to give him electricity simply because the petitioner is a party suffering from electricity, the private parties are not entitled to say that he cannot get electricity ( referring the case study – (2010) (3) WBLR (Cal) 539 before the Hon’ble High Court). Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law his demand requires to be fulfilled. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. In the result, the complaint succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 104 of 2013 ( HDF 104 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest without costs against the O.P nos. 1 to 3, CESC Ltd. and dismissed without cost against the O.P. no. 4 and ex parte against 5 without cost. The O.P. no. 3, District Engineer, CESC Authority be directed to effect the service connection to the residence of the complainant as per schedule premises within 30 days from the date of this order giving top most priority. If there be any resistance by anyone including the O.P. nos. 4 & 5 against such supply of electricity in the said schedule premises, the O.P. nos. 1 to 3 i.e., CESC Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Bantra P.S. The I/C, Bantra P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Authority for providing such supply to the complainant premises in case of approach made by CESC Authority. No costs is awarded in the nature of compensation and litigation. 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 ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
