DATE OF FILING                    :     30-07-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      28-08-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     17-10-2012. .

Sri Swapan Roy,

son of Bimal Roy

of  Ichapur Sealdamga. P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Jagacha,

District  –Howrah----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.    CESC Ltd.          

       433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),

       Howrah – 711 101.

2.     CESC Ltd.,

        Victoria House, Chowringhee Square,

         Kolkata – 700 001.       

3.      Sushil Majhi,

         son of satyen Mahji,

         of  Ichapur Sealdanga, P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Jagacha,

         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. no. 1, CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant and to restrain o.p. no. 3 from raising any obstruction against such installation.

2.                  The complainant applied for installation of new meter  before the o.p. no.

1, CESC Authority having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion as a tenant. The CESC Authority inspected the site on 22-05-2012 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.ps.

3.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 vide their written version stated that the complainant

by filing an application on 11-05-2012 for 0.30 KW. domestic load. Attempt was made for conducting inspection at the complainant premises but could not 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 inspection followed by deposition necessary charges including restraining the o.p. no. 3.

4.                  Notice was  served upon o.p. no. 3 from this Forum but the same return

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.Ps.  ?

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 CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. no. 3  i.e., landlord. It also visualized that the o.p. no. 1 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. no. 3 i.e., landlord. We have also considered the written version of o.p. no. 1 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 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.  85 of 2012 ( HDF 85 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 against deposition of service connection charges, security deposit etc. to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 60 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.

      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. 

      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.