1.      Namita Hazra,

w/o. late Nemai Hazra.

2.      Sushil Das,

s/o. late Usodhar Das,

3.      Baidyanath Das,

s/o. Kanon Behari Das,

4.      Raj Kumar Hazra,

s/o. late Nemai Hazra,

5.      Maya Sen,

w/o. Debasis Sen,

6.      Biman Pramanik,

son of late Bhanu Pramanick,

all the complainants are residing at

41, Aprokash Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah..--------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      The District Engineer,

CESC Ltd., having its regional  office at

433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.

2.      CESC Ltd.,

having its registered  office at

CESC House, Chowringeee Square,

Kolkata – 700 001.

3.      Dulal Barik,

son of  late Mathor Barik,

residing at 41, Aparokash Mukherjee Lane,

P.S.  Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 102.-----------------------------------------------------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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as

amended up to date have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for passing necessary directions upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainants’ occupied portion as a tenant at holding no. 41, Aprakash Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,  District – Howrah, and to restrain O.P. no. 3 i.e., landlord from raising any obstruction against such installation together with other reliefs as compensation and litigation costs. 

2.                  The complainants applied for installation of new meters before the O.P nos. 1

& 2, i.e., CESC Authority on different dates having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to their  occupied portion as a tenant.  The CESC Authority inspected the site on 26-06-2013 altogether  but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by O.P. no. 3 i.e., landlord and free access was not available to the existing meter board position. Finding no other alternative the complainants have lodged this complaint before the 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 admitting  the facts that the

complainants applied for new electric meters at their occupied portions with deposition of Rs 200/- as earnest money individually and necessary attempts for conducting site inspection made on 26-06-2013 at the complainants’ premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by the O.P. no. 3 i.e., landlord for which free access was not available at the complainants’ premises. They have no objection for installation of new meter if the O.P. no. 3 is restrained. These answering O.Ps. further stated that they are enjoying electricity through  meter no. 0830974 from the account of Dulal Barik the landlord of the premises and the instant case for taking separate meters is nothing but to split the consumption to avoid the government duty and taking facility of slab benefit.  

4.                  The O.P. no. 3 vide their written version contended  interalia that the

answering O.P. is only raising objection  against the installation of meter of the complainants within his meter room and which is also the personal bed room. They have also opined that they have noi objection to allow new electric meters  from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 in the name of the individuals if the new electric meter of the complainants installed within the occupied portion of the complainants in respect of the schedule occupied tenanted portion for which it is humbly prayed that the instant complaint should be dismissed with costs and necessary order may be passed as deem fit and proper.   

5.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

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.ps. i.e., CESC Authority after depositing Rs. 200/- as earnest money. It appears that o.p. no. 1& 2,  CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainants’ premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. no. 3  i.e., landlord. It also visualized that the o.p. nos. 1  & 2 being a public utility concern is eager to install meter to the intending consumers i.e. complainants . 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., landlord. We have also considered the written version of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but the fact remains that as the present situation the complainants 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.         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 complainants ) and that to 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 complainants  shall be allowed.

            Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  230 of 2013 ( HDF 230 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2  without costs and dismissed against o.p. no. 3 without costs.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to install  separate meter to the complainants’ premises individually as mentioned in the schedule within 45 days from the date of this order after proper site inspection  and realize the cost together with  observing all other technical formalities.

      The o.p.  no. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the complainants’ occupied 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 and costs. 

      The complainants are 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.