DATE OF FILING                    :     03/04/2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      14/05/2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28/11/2014.  

Sri Sujit Karar,

son of late Niranjan Karar,

of 16, Ram Kalpa Khan Lane, P.S.Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.…………………………………………………………  COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         District Engineer,

  CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,

  433/1,  G.T. Road ( North ),

  District :Howrah,

  PIN – 711 101.

   

  2.         CESC Limited,

  CESC House,  Chowringhee Square,

  Kolkata – 700 001.

   

  3.         Sri Amal Mondal,

  son of late Kanai Lal Mondal,

  old 11/1 and new 14, Ram Kalpa Khan Lane, P.S. Bantra,

  District – Howrah.

   

  4.         Sri Subrata Dhara,

  son of Sri Sisir Dhara

  of old 11/2 and new 15, Ram Kalpa Khan Lane, P.S. Bantra,

  District – Howrah.   

   

  5.         Sri Prosenjit Karar,

  son of late Niranjan Karar

  of 16, Ram Kalpa Khan  Lane, P.S. Bantra,

  District – Howrah,

  PIN – 711 101.……………………………………………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 the complainant namely Sujit Karar U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) where the complaintn has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Limited, for effecting new service connection through underground cable with separate meter in his name at floor no. GR of 16, Ram KalpaKhan Lane, Howrah, PIN – 711101.
  2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Ltd., in their written version contended interalia that there is no deficiency in service as there is a civil dispute with o.p. nos. 3 to 5 and that to realization of MASD Bill the inspection was fixed for carrying out the job on 27-03-2014 but the same could not be taken up for the objection/undue whispering by the o.ps. namely o.p. nos. 3 to 5 jointly.
  3. The o.p. no. 5 vide his written version stated that he is a brother of the complainant within the same premises in a separate mess never raised any objection with regard of electric connection in the name of the complainant and this answering o.p. was/is never raised any objection with regard to the alleged electric connection in the name of the complainant and no cause of action was ever arisen upon the o.p. no. 5 and as such the instant complaint case may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
  4. The o.p. no. 4 who is also a co-sharer of common passage on his written version opined that the complainant in collusion and in conspiracy with the CESC Ltd. trying to take electric connection by installing the electric meter on the common passageand that to without leaving any side space with encroaching a portion of common passage for which Howrah Municipal Corporation passed necessary order for demolition of the deviating portion of the building under this complainant occupied portion for which the instant complaint is liable tobe dismissed with costs.
  5. The notice was served upon the o.p. no. 3 which is returned back with remarks ‘intimation given’ which is good serviced as per Apex Court Order for which the case is heard on ex parte against this answering o.p.
• 6. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

7. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the applicant/complainant in pursuant to his application before the CESC Authority MASD Bill was prepared and paid. If the complainant is not supplied with the electricity connection in grab of the pendency of the civil court, the purpose of the benefical legislation shall be frustrated. Therefore, we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant should be allowed in terms of Section 43(1) and 43(3) of the  Electricity Act, 2003 where the sub-section (3) of the said Section provides that failure to effect such supply within the specified period would entitle penal conseque3nce. It is, therefore, untenable in law to suggest that the statutory duty on the part of the licensee can be discharged for the failure of the complainant to provide necessary free access for supply of electric energy. In the event the licensee find that there are obstruction or difficulties in effecting service connection and the application is unable to provide way leave, it should be the duty of the licensee to undertake necessary works as provided under Part VIII of the electricity  Act, 2003 read with works of licensee rules, 2006 to ensure that such supply is  effected.

Therefore we are of the view that the prayer of the Complainant should be

Allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

          That the C. C. Case No.  179 of 2014 ( HDF 179 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 without costs and dismissed on contest  against the o.p. nos. 4 & 5  without costs and ex parte against the o.p. no. 3  without costs.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to effect the  new service connection through laying underground cable in the common passage where cost hs already been  realized against MASD Bill  within 30 days from the date of this order. 

         If there be any resistance by anyone or by the  O.P. nos. 3, 4 & 5  against such supply of electricity in the  premises as above of the complainant by  the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC  Ltd., then the  CESC  Ltd.   shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance and  protection from the I/.C., Bantra P.S., Howrah.  The I/C, Bantra  P.S., District – Howrah, shall be under obligation to provide necessary  assistance and  protection to the men  and officers of the CESC Ltd. for providing such supply to the complainants.

       No order as to costs.

      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.      

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.