DATE OF FILING : 27-07-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 28-08-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 06-12-2012. .
Smt. Provati Mullick,
widow of late Swapan Mullick,
residing at 49, Bholanath Nandy Lane, Batore,
P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. CESC Ltd.
Consumers' Assistance Cell,
CESC House, Chowringhee Square,
Howrah – 711 101.
2. The District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Kolkata – 711101.
3. Sri Somnath Chatterjee,
son of late Biswanath Chatterjee,
residing at 45, Bholanath Nandy Lane, Batore,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.
PIN – 711105.-------------------------------------------------------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 was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended up to date has prayed for a direction to be given 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 direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 , CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant at 45, Bholanath Nandi Lane, Batore, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, and to restrain o.p. no. 3 from raising any obstruction against such installation.
2. The complainant applied for installation of new meter in the standard
form before the o.p. nod.1 & 2, CESC Authority having deposited Rs. 960/- against MASD Bill issued vide proper receipt dated 01-02-2012. The CESC Authority inspected the site but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by o.p. no. 3, i.e., the landlord and free access was not available to the existing meter board position. Finding no other alternative complainant has lodged this complaint before the Hon’ble 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 stated that the complainant
by filing an application on 08-12-2011 for 0.36 KW. domestic load. Attempt was made for effecting installation of meter at the complainant premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by 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 against the said premises occupied by the complainant unless and until free access is made available.
4. Notice was served upon o.p. no. 3 from this Forum but the same returned
with the postal endorsement ‘refused’. As refusal is a good service and none appeared on behalf of the o.p. no. 3, so the case is heard ex parte against o.p. no. 3.
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. 960/- as service connection charge. It is also to be stated that the complainant complied with all necessary technical formalities together with depositing quotional money to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority. It appears that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the service 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.
7. 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 when all the formalities including MASD Bill paid by him. The objection raised by o.p. no. 3 cannot be sustained at the present situation on some fictitious ground considering electricity is a need based requirement.
8. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority have no latches and negligence in installing the meter in tenanted portion ( herein so called complainant ) and that 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. 84 of 2012 ( HDF 84 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no. 3 without costs.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to install new separate meter after observing all technical formalities to the complainant occupied portion at the premises as mentioned in the schedule 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. nos. 3 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the complainant’s occupied portion.
If there by any resistance by anyone including the o.p. nos. 3 against such supply of electricity in the said premises, the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Shibpur P.S. The I/C, Shibpur P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Authority for providing such supply to the complainant in case of approach made by the CESC Authority.
No order as to compensation.
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.
