DATE OF FILING : 06-09-2012..
DATE OF S/R : 18-10-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-03-2013.
Ananta Maity,
son of late Parasuram Maity,
residing at 88/2, Nilmoni Mullick Lane,
P.O., P.S. and District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
CESC Ltd.,
having its head office at
433, G.T. Road ( S ), P.S. Golabari,
Howrah – 711101.
District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., having its head office at
433, G.T. Road (S), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah.
Rekha Paul,
wife of late Biswanath Paul,
residing at 88/2, Nilmoni Mullick Lane,
P.O., P.S. and 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.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as
amended up to date has prayed for direction upon 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 directions upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant occupied portion as a tenant at 88/2, Nilmoni Mullick Lane, P.O.,P.S. & District – Howrah, and to restrain O.P. no. 3 from raising any obstruction against such installation together with other reliefs as compensation and litigation costs.
The complainant applied for installation of new meter before the O.P nos. 1 &
2, i.e., CESC Authority on 17-05-2012 in the tone of load 0.40 kw. having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion as a tenant. The CESC Authority inspected the site on 02-06-2012 but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by O.P. no. 3 i.e., landlord and free access was not available to the existing meter board position. Finding no other alternative the complainant has lodged this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P nos. 1 & 2.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 vide their written version admitting the facts that the
complainant applied for new electric meter at his occupied portion with deposition of Rs 200/- as earnest money and necessary attempts for conducting site inspection made on 02-06-2012 at the complainant premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by the O.P. no. 3 i.e., landlord for which free access was not available at the complainant premises. They have no objection for installation of new meter if the O.P. no. 3 is restrained.
The O.P. no. 3 vide their written version contended interalia that the instant
suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party and all the co-sharers of the suit property are to be added as necessary parties. The O.P. no. 3 further opined that the complainant is not only self tenant of the tenanted room, his father Parasusram Maity was the original tenant and they substituted themselves in the Title Suit No. 268 of 1996 before the ld. 3rd Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) at Howrah and there is no relationship between the complainant and the O.P. no. 3 and the claim made by the complainant as a sole tenant / owner of the schedule occupied portion is to be made strict proof and for that ground the prayer of the complainant can be rejected with cost.
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. ?
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. It is admitted facts that the complainant applied before the o.ps. i.e., CESC Authority after depositing Rs. 200/- as earnest money. It appears that o.p. no. 1& 2, CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. no. 3 i.e., landlord. It also visualized that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the installation of meter 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 objection raised by the o.p. no. 3 i.e., landlord. We have also considered the written version of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but the fact remains that as the present situation the complainant cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be forced to live in darkness due to fictitious ground considering electricity is a need based requirement of a civilized person.
7. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p., CESC Authority has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in tenanted portion ( herein so called complainant ) and that to they are ready to complete the job if free access at the proposed premises is available with free of all incumbrances.
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. 103 of 2012 ( HDF 103 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 without costs and dismissed against o.p. no. 3 without costs.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to install separate meter to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 45 days from the date of this order after proper site inspection and realize the cost together with observing all other technical formalities.
The o.p. no. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the complainant’s occupied portion.
In case of any illegal objection 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 and costs.
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.
