DATE OF FILING : 11-02-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 20-03-2012.
Ambika Shaw,
son of Gopal Shaw,
residing at 26/1, Hem ( Chandra ) Ghosh Lane,
P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah-------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT(S)
- Versus -
1. CESC Ltd.,
having its head office
at 433, G.T. Road( S ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah.
2. District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its head office
at 433, G.T. Road ( S ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah.
3. Sri Golab Chand alias Golab Chand Barma,
son of Late Sadhu Saran Barma,
residing at previously 26 at present
26/1, Hem Ghosh Lane,
P.O. and P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 102.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Shri Manojit Bandyopadhyay,
Shri Anindya Bhadra,
Ld. Advocates.
Representatives for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2
: Shri Abhijit Bangchi,
Smt. Kakali Mitra,
Ld. Advocates.
Representatives for the opposite party no. 3 : Shri Abhijit Dutta,
Shri Kalyan Roy,
Shri Ramen Sadhukhan,
Shri Subhasis Dutta,
Ld. Advocates.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant complaint case ( HDF Case No. 94 of 2010 ) was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, against O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service.
2. The complainant the bonafide tenant with respect to premises no. 26/1, Hem Chandra Ghosh Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, under the current landlord O.P. no. 3, Golab Chand Barma, being a consumer applied before the CESC Ltd. for obtaining electricity through separate meter within the tenanted premises vide his application dated 19-11-2009. A date was fixed for inspection on 27-11-2009 but ultimately the CESC Authority, O.P. nos. 1 & 2, informed the complainant that the o.p. no. 3 raised objection during inspection and as such the o.ps. no. 1 & 2 failed to take any step Hence the complaint.
3. The O.P. no. 3, current landlord of the complainant in the written version denied allegations and contended interalia that the meter place is situated at his bed room ; that he is 75 years old person ; that he resides with his family and it is not possible to allow any 3rd party into the bed room ; that there is no necessity for separate meter. Hence the case should be dismissed.
4. O.ps. no. 1 & 2 in their written version stated that as per the prayer of the complainant, their men and agents had been to the locale on 27-11-2009 with due intention for inspection. As they did not get any free access to the existing meter board position, inspection work could not be executed and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the CESC Ltd.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two questions arose for determination :
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up for consideration. It is the persistent allegation of the complainant that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 did not make any positive attempt for raising M.A. Bill and giving electric service to the complainant, nor they lodged any F.I.R. against the O.P. no. 3 who stood in the way of separate electric meter.
7. Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 provides that it is the duty of the Electricity Authority to accept the application for separate meter and to request the owner or the occupier of the premises to provide new electric meter to the applicant within the stipulated period of one month. The decision reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2897 in fact fortifies the claim of the complainant wherein Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the Electricity Act ( Section 67 ) 2003 has made provision to enable the distribution of licensee to carry out works for the purpose of supply electricity to the owners or the occupiers of the premises.
8. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the distribution licensee and the distribution licensee is to supply electricity to the complainant and accordingly we are of the further view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall have to be allowed.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Thus the application succeeds.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the C. C. Case No. 94 of 2010 ( HDF 94 of 2010 ) U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date be allowed on contest without cost against O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 3.
That the o.ps. no. 1 & 2 be directed to provide new electricity service in the name of the complainant through separate meter at the tenanted premises after necessary inspection within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 do execute the abovementioned order within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after the expiry of the period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
