Date of filing :22.11.2018
Judgment : Dt.19.3.2021
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Ashok Sarkar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) District Engineer, CESC Ltd. and (2) Sri Nemai Debnath.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he and his family members have been carrying business in a shop room measuring about 120 sq.ft. in the ground floor of a 2nd storied building at premises No.277B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, previously Behala P.S., now Haridevpur P.S. The said shop room was transferred by OP No.2 to one Ashok Mondal by a registered deed of sale who subsequently sold it to the Complainant by a deed of sale on 18.8.2017. Since after getting possession, Complainant has been running his business in the said shop room for earning their livelihood. Complainant applied before the OP No.1 for getting electricity through a new electric meter in his name in the existing meter room of the building. On receipt of the application OP No.1 came to inspect the site but they could not succeed due to the protest by OP No.2. Complainant has also applied before the OP No.1 to install a new electric meter inside the schedule shop room. But the same was refused by the OP No.1 on the ground already one service line existed in the schedule building. So, ultimately the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying directing the OP No.1 to provide electricity in the schedule property by installing a new electric A.C. service inside the schedule property/shop room or in alternatively in the existing meter room of the said building at premises No.277B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, to restrain the OP No.2 from causing any obstruction at the time of installation of the electric meter, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.
Complainant has filed copy of deed of his purchase and the deed of Ashok Mondal, Municipal Tax Bill, copy of the mutation certificate and the letters sent by the CESC.
OP No.1 is contesting the case by filing written vision contending specifically that on receipt of application for new meter from the Complainant for commercial purpose when the men of the OP went to inspect the premises,inspection could not be carried out due to strong objection by OP No.2. Since OP No.1 could not get access to the existing meter board of the said premises on repeated visits due to resistance by OP No.2, inspection could not be carried out. The OP No.1 is duty bound to install new electric meter at the existing meter room of the said premises if the Complainant is a legal occupier. The OP No.1 will give electric supply through the installation of new meter at the existing meter room to the Complainant on compliance of all legal formalities and also if free access is allowed to the OP No.1 in the meter room. So, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP No.2 is also contesting the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegation contending specifically that the Complainant is not an owner of the entire property. He is owner in respect of only one shop room. The building is not a multistoried building. It is a two storied building, absolutely owned by OP No.2 barring the shop room of the Complainant. Complainant purchased the shop room knowing fully well that there is no electricity in the said shop room. So, the Complainant can get the installation of meter in his purchased place according to law. So, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of the trial parties have filed their respective evidences followed by filing of questionnaire and reply and ultimately written notes of arguments have been filed. Parties have also advanced their argument.
So the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP No.1?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion in order to avoid repetition.
Complainant has claimed that he purchased the shop room from one Ashok Mondal to whom the shop room was transferred by OP No.2. The copy of the two deeds have been filed by the Complainant. However, OP No.2 was the owner of the said shop room and he sold the same to Ashok Mondal who subsequently sold to the Complainant, has not been disputed by the OP No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant is in possession of the said shop room and is running his business. It is also evident from the written version filed by the OP No.2 himself that there is no electricity in the said shop room. OP No.1 has admitted that the Complainant has applied for installation of new meter for the supply of electricity in the said shop room. But as the men of OP No.1 did not get access in the existing meter room or the meter board due to protest by OP No.2 the inspection could not be carried out. As per Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 on an application by the owner or an occupier of the premises, the licensee/OP No.1 has to supply the electricity to such premises within one month on receipt of the application requiring such supply. Since admittedly Complainant is the owner of the said shop room, he is entitled to the electricity in view of the said Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003. OP No.1 has also stated that they are under obligation to supply the electricity to a legal occupier. But it is evident that they could not supply the same due to not getting access to the existing meter room / meter board. Since OP No.2 himself had sold the shop room to one Ashok Mondal from whom the Complainant purchased, OP No.2 cannot deprive the Complainant from getting the supply of the electricity in his said shop room. Complainant has a statutory right under Section 43 of the Electricity Act as highlighted above to call upon the CESC to supply him the electricity. Since there is an existing meter room or meter board, it would be appropriate to have the meter installed in the said existing meter board not only for the purpose of safety but also for the purpose of monitoring of the same. So, in such a situation, Complainant is entitled to the supply of electricity in the shop room by installation of a meter in the existing meter room/meter board on compliance of all the required formalities. However, on consideration of the given facts and situation of this case as OP all along was ready to install the meter, but did not get the access, we find no justification to pass any order as to compensation as prayed by the Complainant.
Hence
ordered
CC/638/2018 is allowed on contest against OPs. OP No.1 is directed to install a new meter for supply of the electricity in the shop room of the Complainant in the existing meter room/meter board of premises No.277B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Police Station – previously Behala, then Thakurpukur and now Haridevpur and if so required with assistance of the Officer-in-charge, Haridevpur P.S., within 30 day s from the date of this order. OP No.2 is directed not to obstruct or disturb the men/staff of the OP No.1 at the time of installation of new electric meter in the existing meter room.
