DATE OF FILING : 02-03-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 03-04-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 04-07-2012.
Biraj alias Bhiraj Bhattacharjy,
son of late Prabodh Chandra Bhattacharya,
residing at 19, Muktaram Dey Lane, P.S. Bantra,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The CESC Limited,
Howrah, 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),
Howrah – 711 101.
2. CESC Ltd.,
Victoria House, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700 001.
3. Indian Culture Centre,
represented by its Secretary,
Sri Kiran Mukherjee,
having its office at 19, Muktaram Dey Lane,
P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah.
4. Prabhat Samanta,
son of late Bijan Samanta,
residing at 5/2/1, Muktaram Dey Lane,
P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah.
5. Chandra Kanta Dutta,
residing at 16/1/1, Muktaram Dey 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.
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 against 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. nos. 1 & 2 for immediate installation of new meter of the petitioner at 19, Muktaram Dey Lane, P.S. Bantra, District –Howrah, in the name of the complainant and to restrain the other o.ps. from causing any disturbances.
2. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority in their written version stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and admitted that the applicant / complainant has complied with all the formalities and paid the MASD Bill on 26-12-2012. But the meter could not be installed owing to the objection raised by the other inmates of the same premises.
3. The O.P. nos. 3, 4 & 5 in their written version stated that the complainant is using electricity since long from the connection of Netaji Byamaghar and as such there is no necessity for new separate meter ; that the complainant never deposited any amount as security money before the CESC Authority ; that they never raised any objection against installation. So the case should be dismissed.
4. 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 :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant has complied with all the necessary formalities. This is apparent from the enclosures. The O.P. CESC Authority could not install the same in view of the objection raised by the other o.ps. When CESC Authority being the public utility concern has no objection for installation of the same, the other o.ps. cannot stand in the way and raise objection. Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 15 of 2012 ( HDF 15 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest without costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against the rest without cost.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority be directed to install a new meter at 19,
Muktaram Dey Lane, P.S. Bantra, District –Howrah, giving opportunity to the complainant to comply all necessary formalities within 30 days from the date of this order.
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.
