DATE OF FILING : 14-12-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 16-01-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24-04-2012.
Sri Ajay Barma,
son of Sri Anil Chandra Barma,
residing at 30/1, Pilkhana 2nd Bye Lane,
and C/o. Tahir Sk. 57, Nanda Ghosh Road,
both P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The CESC Limited,
having its office
at CESC House, 1, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700001.
2. District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
3. Smt. Mina Varma,
wife of Sri Bhola Varma,
of 15, Sambhu Haldar Lane, P.S. M.P. Ghora,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.
4. Sri Binod Varma,
son of Sri Raju Varma,
of 30/1, Pilkhana 2nd Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District - ;Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
5. Sri Bhola Varma,
son of late Gaya Prasad Varma,
of 15, Sambhu Haldar Lane, P.S. M.P. Ghora,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106. -----------------------------------------------------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. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complaint case ( HDF 110 of 2011 ) was filed by the complainant U/S
12 the C.P. Act, 1986, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority for immediate installation of the new meter at the premises mentioned in the schedule along with other relies.
2. The complainant applied for electric supply through separate meter at the existing meter board position for his occupied portion in the 4th floor at 30/1, Pilkhana 2nd Bye Lane, District – Howrah, on 14-02-2011 with consent of the landlord. Inspection was carried out by CESC Authority on 26-02-2012 and the MASD Bill was paid. But on 01-03-2011 CESC Ltd. claimed some outstanding dues from the owners ( 20 nos. ) of premises who applied for separate service from the CESC Ltd. jointly. The said amount being Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 07-03-2011 and revised offer letter dated 10-03-2011 with revised MASD Bill of Rs. 830/- was sent on 10-03-2011 and the same was paid by the complainant on 14-03-2011.
3. The O.P. no. 3 , 4 & 5 in spite of receipt of the summons did not turn up. So the case is heard ex parte against O.P. nos. 3 to 5.
4. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority in filing written version admitted the fact of the prayer for new meter, payments of the MASD Bill, the company failed to fix the meter as access to the meter board position was not available and no meter pillar box was installed. On 06-01-2012 the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 again tried to install the meter pillar box at the stated address but could not do so for objection raised by O.Ps. and their associates.
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. In view of the submission of the ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 the positive approach of the CESC Authority is reflected. They have no objection in installation of the new meter if there is no resistance on the part of the 3rd party. The company is willing to give supply but the same has to be done through meter pillar box to be installed in a common portion by the CESC Ltd. This important part of installation could not be achieved due to objection from the landlord’s side. The company lodged F.I.R. on 06-01-2012 with the Golabari P.S. when their final attempt to install pillar box was frustrated by the O.Ps. and their associates.
7. We learn that the building is a multi-storied one and CESC Ltd. has to provide separate supply for each occupant which is more than 20 numbers. Naturally such supply through separate meter can only be obtained if a meter pillar box is installed. It is the duty of the complainant to provide a suitable place to the satisfaction of the o.ps. no. 1 & 2 to facilitate supply of electricity to all the occupants. We appreciate the submission of the ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 that to avoid any theft a new system requires to be introduced at the cost of the company i.e. installation of meter pillar box in a common portion to provide separate service to each occupant of the premises. We further appreciate the gesture of the CESC Authority that they are ready to give supply to the complainant and other applicants of the said premises in consultation with the occupiers and landlord . Naturally we cannot trace any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2. But to facilitate the installation of the separate meters at the earliest we are passing necessary order in favour of the complainant. Accordingly both the points are disposed of.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the C. C. Case No. 110 of 2011 ( HDF 110 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte against O.P. no. 3, 4 & 5 without cost.
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. nos. 3, 4 & 5 are hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during installation of the meter pillar box.
In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and O.P. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Ltd. 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 the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T,K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah
( T,K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
( Shri P. K. Chatterjee ) ( Samiksha Bhattacharya )
Member, C.D.R.F., HOWRAH. Member, C.D.R.F., HOWRAH.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
COMPLAINT CASE NO. HDF 75 of 2011
DATE OF FILING : 26-09-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 11-01-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-09-2012.
Sri Rabindra Nath Midda,
son of late Sripati Charan Midda,
residing at flat no. 28, 2nd floor,
at premises no. 5/1, Dr. Rajkumar Kundu Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Shri Sital Kumar Dutta,
son of late Khagendra Nath Dutta,
residing at 5/1, Dr. Rajkumar Kundu Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah. ----------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
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 complaint case ( HDF 75 of 2011 ) was filed by the complainant U/S
12 the C.P. Act, 1986, against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. Sital Kumar Dutta to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat measuring more or less 635 sq. ft. situated on the 2nd floor of southern corner of 5/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Kundu Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, together with compensation for Rs. 1,50,000/- and litigation costs, as the O.P. in spite of delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant on 30th June, 2005 after receiving the full consideration money of Rs. 4,46,000/- has refused to execute the deed of conveyance.
2. Proper notice was served upon the O.P. Sital Kumar Dutta. The postal endorsement shows ‘left’ which as per law is a good service.
3. Upon pleading of the complainant two points arose for determination.
iii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the record and the enclosures it appears that the complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P. on 15-02-2004 with respect to the flat measuring 635 sq. ft. at 5/1, Dr. Rajkumar Kundu Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah. The enclosures reflect that the O.P. received the total amount of Rs. 4,46,000/- as per the agreement. Possession was delivered on 30th June, 2005 to the complainant. It further appears that the O.P. in spite of receipt of the total consideration money and even after delivery of possession has not performed his part and obligation towards executing and registering the deed of conveyance. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for granting relief to the complainant in terms of his prayer. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the C. C. Case No. 75 of 2011 ( HDF 75 of 2011 ) be and the same is allowed ex parte against the O.P. Sital Kumar Dutta with costs.
The O.P. be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in the name of the complainant with respect to the flat measuring 635 sq. ft. situated at 2nd floor of south eastern corner of 5/1, Dr. Rajkumar Kundu Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, within 30 days from the date of this order.
The O.P. do pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing inconvenience, mental pain and prolonged harassment by non executing the deed of conveyance.
The O.P. do pay a further litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
