DATE OF FILING                    :     17-01-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      14-02-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-05-2014.

Sri Veerendra Kumar Gupta,

son of late Deshraj Gupta,

residing at 7, Jay Narayan Santra Lane,

P.S. & District – Howrah.----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         District Engineer,

CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,

433/1, G.T. Road ( North ) , P.S. Golabari,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.

2.         Smt. Jyotsna Bose,

wife of Santosh Kumar Bose,

residing at 7, Jay Narayan Santra lane,

P.S. & 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.               This is to consider an application  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date )  praying  for  direction to be given upon the O.P. no. 2 that he has no right to obstruct for getting new service connection through separate meter as the o.p. no. 1 CESC  Authority is willing for site inspection for effect the connection but failed due non availability of free access at the complainant‘s premises together with assistance of civil authority for the same.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a monthly tenant in respect of the premises  described in the schedule into his complaint.  The complainant consuming electricity from the existing system. The o.p. no. 2 filed a suit against the complainant for eviction before the 3^rd Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ) , Howrah, being T.S. 356 of 1996.  The o.p. no. 2 got a decree of eviction against the complainant followed by an execution case started being  Title Execution No. 14 of 09 before the 3^rd Civil Judge, ( Jr. Division ), Howrah.  Furthermore, the complainant filed  a  Misc. case Being no. 1 of 2011 before the ld. 1^st Track Court – III, Howrah, and the same suit is rejected by the said court on 20-04-2012. The o.p. no. 1 has  this complaint praying for relief. Hence the complaint.   

3.               The o.p. no. 1 & 2 have sub mitted their written version separately which is considered.

4.                The contention of o.p. no. 1 i.e., CESC  Ltd. is that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in law as a dispute between the parties is absolutely civil in nature.

5.               The o.p. no. 2 in their written version categorically stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law before the Forum inasmuch as the o.p. no. 2 got a decree of ejectment against the complainant in T.S. 356 of 1996  followed by Executi0on case being no. 14 of 09 which is yet to dispose of. So under such circumstances complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

6.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complaint is maintainable in law ?

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

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and   compensation   as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

7.               All  the  three points are taken up together for  the sake of convenience of discussion and in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.

8.               Admittedly complainant is monthly tenant in respect of the premises in question under o.p. no. 2 and admittedly o.p. no. 2 got a decree of eviction against the complainant . It is also admitted that an appeal against the decree is pending before the Hon’ble  Court Howrah. However, as regard the question whether the application under Section 12 of the C..P. Act, 1986 before this  Forum under the aforesaid circumstances is maintainable in law or not, we are of the view the question of tenancy between the complainant the  o.p. no. 2 is not sub-judice before the civil court and we refrain ourselves from discussing the aforesaid question. 

9.               The only question which is to be decided by us whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act, 1986 and that to there is any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 CESC Ltd. In deciding of the above we are of the view that as the  complainant applied for a new electric meter in question in respect of the premises he may be regarded as a potential consumer for supply of electric energy from service    provider, o.p. no. 1 CESC Ltd. in terms of the definition of service  U/S

2(o)  of the said Act, taking into consideration that the CESC  Authority i.e. o.p. no. 1 is eager to effect the connection at the complainant premises but could not achieve due to

resistance raised by the o.p. no. 2. The CESC Authority has given best effort for free access but not getting the same.  The complainant did not submit any evidence on record to show that he has made proper arrangement for getting free access to the men of the

CESC  Authority to the meter board position for installation of new electric meter for which complainant has failed to prove the essential facts that the o.p. n. 1 has committed any deficiency in service.

10.  From the above since the complainant has failed to establish the fact the CESC

Ltd. has committed any deficiency in service the application shall fails.

All  the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  19  of 2014 ( HDF  19 of 2014 )  be  dismissed  on contest without  costs against o.ps.

      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.