DATE OF FILING : 31.03.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 18.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15.10.2015.
Binoy Mondal,
son of late Bijay Krishna Mondal,
of 6, Beharilal Chakraborty Lane, P.S. Howrah,
District Howrah……………………………………………………...COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
- The CESC Ltd.,
Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Howrah – 711101.
2. Smt. Rita Bhattacharyya,
wife of late Dinabandhu Bhattacharyya.
3. Mukund Bhattacharyya,
son of late Dinabandhu Bhattacharyya,
both o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are residing at 6, Beharilal Chakrabroty Lane,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Binoy Mondal, against CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office, Howrah, and two others, praying for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. to install new electric connection at the tenanted premises no. 6, Beharilal Chakraborty Lane, P.S. & District Howrah, and also to direct the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 not to obstruct such work of installation of new electric connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental agony.
- The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a new connection before the o.p. no. 1 and deposited requisite charges. The o.p. no. 1 made an inspection at the tenanted premises. Subsequently o.p. no. 1 sent a letter to the complainant vide Ref. no. 06/03199/15 dated 12.03.2015 wherein the o.p. no. 1 stated that they were unable to provide electric supply at the aforesaid tenanted premises on some ground. In connivance with the other o.ps. the o.p. no. 1 has been trying to disregard the petition of the complainant and such act amounted to deficiency in service on their part and so the petitioner filed the case.
- The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and further submitted that the petitioner is a tenant under the o.p. no. 1 and entitled to separate electric connection.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that they visited the spot of the complainant for inspection on 17.02.2015 and 11.03.2015 but the access to the meter board is not available and the work could not be done. The o.p. no. 1 informed the matter to the complainant vide letters dated 18.02.2015 and 12.03.2015 stating the reason. One Mukund Bhattacharyya and one Rita Bhattacharyya raised objection in writing and sent the same to the District Engineer, CESC Ltd. Thus the o.p. no. 1 though interested could not install the new connection due to non accessibility of the meter room and so there was no deficiency on their part and the case is dismissed against them.
5. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., CESC Ltd. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a tenant of the premises and submitted rent receipt issued by o.p. no. 2, Rita Bhattacharyya, in favour of the complainant and applied for new connection before the o.p. no. 1 who did not render new connection to the petitioner on the ground that the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 raised objection against the new connection. There is no reason to refuse such new connection and so the petitioner field the case. The o.p. no. 1 in para 8 of their version submitted that they are willing to effect new electric connection and new meter if free access is available. Thus, this Forum finds that the o.p. no. 1 could not render such new connection due to obstruction raised by the owner of the premises.The simple objection raised by the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 is that they are owner of the premises and the petitioner has no legal right to get electricity connection in their premises.
7. Keeping in mind the submission of the ld. counsels of all sides and also provision of law in connection with the contents of the petition as well as the written version filed therein, this Forum finds that in the absence of electricity and water,life cannot be thought of in these days and this the petitioner is entitled to such electricconnection as he is a tenant in the aforesaid premises i.e. a legal occupier. As there is no deficiency in service on the post of the O.P. 1 so there is no question of awarding compensation in favour of petitioner.
In view of above discussion and findings, this Forum is of the opinion that the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 129 of 2015 ( HDF 129 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 but without costs.
The petitioner is entitled to get new electric connection in his tenanted premises and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to render such electric connection by placing a new meter in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and in case of any obstruction, the o.p. no. 1 is to take the assistance of local p.s. and the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are directed not to cause any obstruction while rendering of such new electric connection and the o.ps. failing to comply the order of the Forum, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
