Durgapada Das, Residing at 56/6, Dharmatala Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711102.-------.--------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. CESC Ltd., having its head office at 433, G.T. Road ( S ), P.S. Golabari, Howrah – 711101. 2. District Engineer, CESC Ltd., having its head office at 433, G.T. Road (S), P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah. 3. Protibha Nayak, Wife of late Ajit Nayak. 4. Laltu Nayakk. 5. Mantu Nayak, Both sons of lte Ajit Nayak. 6. Shyamoli Nayak. 7. Sonali Nayak, Both daughter of late Ajit Nayak, All residing at 56/6, Dharmotala Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711102.-----------------------------------------------------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 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 56/6, Dharmatal Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, and to restrain O.P. nos. 3 to 7 from raising any obstruction against such installation together with other reliefs as compensation and litigation costs. 2. The complainant applied for installation of new meter before the O.P nos. 1 & 2, i.e., CESC Authority on 13-05-2013 having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion as a tenant. The CESC Authority inspected the site on 21-05-2013 and 26-06-2013 but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by O.P. nos. 3 to 7 i.e., other co-sharers 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. 3. 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 21-05-2013 and 26-06-2013 at the complainant premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by the O.P. nos. 3 to 7 i.e., co-sharers for which free access was not available at the complainant premises. They have no objection for installation of new meter if the O.P. nos. 3 to 7 is restrained. 4. Notices were served upon the O.P.nos. 3 to 7 which was returned back with the postal remarks ‘left / not known’. As per Apex Court Order the same would be treated as a good service. Moreover, none of the O.P. nos. 3 to 7 neither appear nor submit any written version for which ex parte order has been fixed against them. 5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 ? 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. 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 attempts for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. nos. 3 to 7 i.e., co-sharers. 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. nos. 3to 7 i.e., co-sharers 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. 200 of 2013 ( HDF 200 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 without costs and dismissed ex parte against o.p. nos. 3 to 7 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. nos. 3 to 7 are 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. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
