DATE OF FILING : 20-07-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 28-11-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-03-2012.
Sri Avijit Panja,
son of Late Sukumar Panja,
of 2/5/1, Badan Roy Lane, P.S. Bantra,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT(S).
- Versus -
1. CESC Limited,
having its office
at CESC House, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700001.
2. District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
3. Sri Santanu Seal,
of 2/5/1, Badan Roy Lane, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101. ---------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S).
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complaint case ( HDF 54 of 2011 ) was filed by the complainant U/S
12 the C.P. Act, 1986, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service.
2. The complainant a bonafide tenant with respect to premises no. 2/5/11 Badan Roy Lane, Howrah – 1, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, under the current landlord O.P. no. 3, being a consumer applied before the o.ps. no. 2 & 3, CESC Authority, for obtaining electricity through separate meter within the tenanted premises vide his application M.A. Bill No. 06/09933/11/5/11, Ref. No. 06/09933/11/806. A date was fixed for inspection i.e., 04-07-2011 but the same could not be installed for forcible resistance from the O.P. no. 3. Hence the complaint.
3. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 in the written version stated interalia that the complainant is entitled to get electricity in his favour but due to serious objection by the O.P. no. 3 and his family members further progress for installation of the meter could not be achieved.
4. The O.P. no. 3 the current landlord in the written version contended interalia that a T .S. No. 169 of 2011 has been filed before the Civil Court, Howrah, to determine the tenancy right of the complainant and for temporary injunction against the complainant from getting new electric meter.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination.
a) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
b) 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. Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 provides that it is the duty of the Electricity Authority to accept the application for separate meter and to request the owner or the occupier of the premises to provide new electric meter to the applicant within the stipulated period of one month. The decision reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2897 in fact fortifies the claim of the complainant wherein Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the Electricity Act ( Section 67 ) 2003 has made provision to enable the distribution of licensee to carry out works for the purpose of supply electricity to the owners or the occupiers of the premises. Naturally the decision as cited by the O.P. no. 3 cannot have any effect upon this Forum in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is immaterial if any civil suit is pending against the complainant for determination of the tenancy. It is evident on scrutiny of the record that the T .S. No. 169 of 2011 was filed on 05-12-2011 whereas the instant complaint was filed on 20-07-2011 that is much earlier of the filing of the civil suit.
7. The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 has candidly admitted and they have no objection for installation of a new meter if a suitable location for installation of the same is offered.
8. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and they are duty bound to supply electricity to the complainant. Accordingly we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. It is immaterial if the O.P. no. 3 has strong objection or not. Both the points are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the C. C. Case No. 54 of 2011 ( HDF 54 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest without cost against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without cost against O.P. no. 3.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to provide new electric in the name of the complainant through separate meter at the tenanted premises after necessary inspection within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
