DATE OF FILING                    :     08-06-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      14-08-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     18-10-2012.

Smt. Sarbamangala Rana,

wife of late Ratan Krishna Rana,

residing at 18, Barada Charan Bhattacharyee Lane,

P.S. & District –Howrah----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         CESC Limited,

having its registered office at CESC House,

Chowringhee Square,

Kolkata – 700 001.

2.         District Engineer,       

CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,

433/1, G.T. Road ( N ), P.S. Golabari,

District – Howrah.

3.         Sri Buddhadeb Nag,

            son of Lakshin Kanta Nag,

            residing at 18, Barada Charan Bhattacharjee Lane,

            P.S. & District – Howrah,

            PIN – 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 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 Smt. Sarbamangala Rana, w/o late Ratan Krishna Rana, residing at 18, Barada Charan Bhattacharjee Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah,  has  prayed for direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority for installation of new electric meter against existing service connection to the name of the complainant together with the prayer for damages, litigation costs and other reliefs as the o.ps. did not supply the electricity and install the new meter in spite of discharging the formalities  as required by the complainant.   

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, in filing separate  written version

contended that inspection was carried out on 23-06-2009 against proper application made by the complainant for new service connection at the residential address of the complainant ; that the applicant complied with all formalities including payment of  MASD Bill dated 20-07-2009 of Rs. 975/- ; that the execution of the job could not be accelerated due to the objection raised by the o.p. no. 3 ( herein so called tenant ).

3.      The o.p. no. 3 in filing separate written version categorically denied all the

 allegations made by the complainant and o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and that to he has never created any objection or disturbance to the o.p. no. 2 to install the new meter to the complainant occupied portion / meter room.

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 active consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant complied with all necessary technical formalities together with depositing necessary quotational money  to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority. It appears that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being a public utility concern is eager to

cater the service 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 the objection raised by the o.p. no. 3. We have also considered the written version of o.p. no. 3 but the fact remains is that as  the present situation, the   consumer cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be  forced to live in darkness when all the formalities including MASD Bill paid by him. The objection raised by the o.p. no. 3 cannot be sustained at the present situation on some fictitious ground  considering   electricity is a need based requirement of  a civilized person.

      6.               Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p., CESC Authority  has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in question and that to they are ready to complete the job if free access at the proposed premises is available.

            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.  59 of 2012 ( HDF 59 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest without   costs  against  O.P. nos. 1 & 2 , CESC Authority and dismissed without cost against o.p. no. 3.   

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority  be directed to provide new electric connection through separate meter to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. no. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during installation  of the meter.

      In case of any illegal objection raised 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.