Date of filing : 21.11.2014
Date of S/R : 22.12.2014
Date of Order : 26.08.2015
Md. Kurban
S/o Lt. Mashiuddin,
209, Girish Ghosh Road (Belur)
P.S. Belur, District-Howrah-711202………………………….Complainant
Vs.
1) CESC Ltd and .
Having Regional office at 433/1, G.T. Road,
P.S.- Golabari, District- Howrah-711 101.
2) Baij Nath Singh, S/o Shabapati Singh,
Premises NO. 16, Lal Babu Share Road,
Lal Babu Shaire Road, P.S.- Belur,
Howrah-711202………………………………………………………………….O.P.s
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.
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Md. Kurban against the O.P.s, C.E.S.C Ltd. and another, praying for direction upon the O.P. No. 1 to supply electricity to the petitioner and also direct O.P. 1 to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
The case of the petitioner is that he has been residing the premises No. 209 Girish Ghsoh Road under P.S. Balur, District Howrah. He applied for getting new electric connection for his domestic use at the office of the O.P. 1 who sent security deposit bill of Rs. 9575/- on 05.07 .2014 and he paid the bill on 21.08.2014. The O.P. did not arrange the new connection and the meter in the new premises and lastly on 30.10.2014 the O.P. 1 stated that one Baij Nath Singh of premises No. 16 , Lalbabu Shaire Road, raised objection to the installation of the meter in the premises as his owner. The O.P.1 also told him that there is Civil Suit pending before Civil Court and finding no other alternative filed this instant case.
The O.P. 1 CESC contested the case for filing a written version wherein they denying the allegation made against them and submitted that the O.P. received the application for new connection at premises No. 209 Girish Ghosh Road, Bally and made inspection and forwarded MASD bills and the petitioner made the payment. When the O.P. went to the resident to the petitioner there was stiff objection from the O.P. 2 B. N. Singh and they fail to effect the supply and thus there was no unfair trade practice on deficiency in service on their part. The O.P.s further submitted that they are always ready and willing to provide service to the intending consumer but their employee also should not be extend to risk and danger. This case be dismissed with cost.
O.P. No. 2 filed and written version, denying the allegation of the petitioner as false one and the case is harassing one . He conceded that the predecessor of petitioner Md. Mashiuddin falsely claim himself as the owner of the property in premises No 209 of the Girish Gosh Road and filed a title suit 228/96 in the Howrah Court against O.P. 2 and 2 others and the case was dismissed on 28.02.2011. The petitioner has no connection of the property and so he is not entitled to get electric connection therein and the case is dismissed with cost.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Has the petitioner any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 & 2 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All this issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Sk Kurban filed affidavit as well as the documents like receipt of his security deposit and earnest money to prove the facts that he applied for new electric meter and the O.P. 1 made inspection and inspite of depositing the money the O.P.1 did not provide electric connection to his house.
Regarding the obstruction raised by O.P. 2 submitting that he purchased the property in 1989 from Sk. Alimuddin which was part of the Dag No. 209 and rest portion was purchased by Mr. K. Singh and other being premises No. 209/2 and the 3rd part was sold to Jaleswar Singh the further of the petitioner was tenant and he claimed as owner and his case was dismissed by Civil Court and his appeal is pending. Be that as it may this Forum is not here to decide whether the petitioner claims electricity as owner or tenant. The petitioner occupied the property as his clear from his documents and the same entitled him to get electricity. The O.P. 1 CESC submitted that they have no objection to provide electricity to the petitioner . Thus electricity being a basic needs of the day and the petitioner being a occupier of the premises No. 209, Girish Ghosh Road is entitled to get electricity to his residence. The negligence or deficiency on the part of O.P.1 is not proof here as there was obstruction from O.P. 2 who claimed ownership of the property.
In view of above discussion and findings the case of the petitioner succeeds .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the Consumer Case No. 596/2014 be and the same is allowed in contest against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 but without cost and without compensation considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner is entitled is relief as prayed for except compensation and cost as this Forum finds no latches on the part of the O.P.s. as regards deficiency in service.
The O.P. 1 is directed to provide new electric service connection to the petitioner in the house of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and O.P. 2 is directed not to create any obstruction while such electric service connection is provided to the petitioner . The O.P.s are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order for execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
