DATE OF FILING : 02-05-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 15-06-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12-12-2012.
Sri Biplab Das,
son of late Dwijalal Das of
3, Jay Narayan Santra Lane,
District – Howrah.----------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. CESC Limited,
Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Howrah – 711101.
2. The District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Howrah – 711101.
3. The Senior Manager ( Loss Control Cell ),
CESC Limited, Eastern Building 4th floor,
CESC House, 15/1, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700001. ----------------------------------------------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. i.e., CESC Authority 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.Ps. for immediate effecting new electric service connection in the tone of load 1.80 KW ( Commercial ) at 3, Jay Narayan Santra Lane, Howrah.
2.. The o.ps CESC Authority stated in their written version admitted that the complainant applied on 16-12-2011 for new supply at 3, Jay Narayan Santra Lane, owrah, of of Howrah, in the tone of load 1.80 KW ( Commercial ) in his name followed by inspection at the complainant's premises held on 24-12-201, but no positive action will be accelerated including issuance of MASD bill etc. on the ground that some dues are lying unpaid in the names of Sunil Kanti Das and Sudhir Kanti Biswas respectively who happen to be tenants under the complainant and the same was duly informed to the complainant by the o.ps. vide their letter dated 10-01-2012. They have no objection for effecting the new commercial service connection at the said premises if all the dues which is remaining unpaid will be paid by the complainant.
3. 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 :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It appears that the o.ps. claimed the unpaid amount in the nature of dues lying at the premises where new connection has been sought for by the complainant. We have gone through the details of the written version and concluded that the owner ( herein the complainant ) was liable for repaying the arrears only if the person had entered into a prior contract with the licensee ( herein supplier ) for paying the dues of the erstwhile owner. Hence CESC Authorities cannot set a precondition that a new connection will be given only subject to payment of the previous arrears. Moreover, a power utility concern can seek arrears of a previous owner from the incumbent only if an application is made to transfer the same connection in the new property holders name.
5. The licensee cannot withhold a fresh connection on the ground erstwhile owners' dues are pending ( reference judgment Nabin Agarwal and Anr. Vs. CESC Ltd. and others dated 30-09-2003 of Calcutta High Court passed by Hon'ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay which runs as under :
"Arrear due of the erstwhile owner of the premises cannot be claimed from any prospective occupier of the premises".
6. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.ps.' action in this particular case is deficient in nature for non effecting the new service connection to the complainant premises as per above schedule on some fictitious ground for which the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. The points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 37 of 2012 ( HDF 37 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.ps. without cost.
The O.Ps. CESC Authority, be directed to provide new electric connection to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 60 days from the date of this order giving opportunities to the complainant to comply all necessary technical formalities.
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.
