DATE OF FILING                    :           14-09-2012.

DATE OF S/R                         :            10-10-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER       :          15-01-2013.

Smt. Parnoshree Roy,

wife of Sri Sanjib Roy

of 84/3, Lalababu  Shire Road, P.O. Belurmath,

P.S. Bally, District –Howrah,

PIN – 711202.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

1.            District Engineer,

CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,

433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),

Howrah – 711101.

2.            Sri Raghabendra Nath Modak,

3.            Sri Rabindra Nath Modak,

4.            Sri Ram Mohan Modak,

                o.p. nos. 2 to 4 are all sons of

                late Tarapada Modak and are the resident of

                84, Lalababu  Shire Road, P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Bally,

                District – Howrah,

                PIN – 711202.------------------------------------------------------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 against the O.P. no. 1   alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ) &  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant  prays for direction upon the O.P. no. 1 to provide electric service connection against premises no. 84/3, Lalababu Shire Road, Belur Math, P.S. Bally, together with compensation and litigation costs in spite of observing the necessary formalities including deposition  of MASD bill by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free / easy access to the complainant's premises. 

2.            The o.p. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority in their written version admitted the

facts regarding deposition of MASD Bill, execution of agreement etc. The o.p. no. 1 has given his best efforts to effect the service connection to the complainant premises but could not be  accelerated due to objection raised by the o.p. nos. 2 to 4; that the o.p. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority is ready and willing to effect the service connection if free access is available at the complainant's premises with the assistance of civil authority.

3.            Proper notices were served upon the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 against  they appeared

by filing separate vakalatnama and subsequently did not submit any written version, In spite of given enough opportunity for sake of natural justice under which ex parte order has been made against o.p. nos. 2 to 4.

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

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

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                            Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.             Since the complainant deposited the quotational money in the nature of MASD Bill with observing necessary technical formalities before the o.p. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority  and the o.p. no. 1 is willing to effect the service connection, the objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 to 4 cannot stand for effecting the proposed service connection in accordance of provisions of  Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or a part thereof, the petitioner has a statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give his / her electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation, to give his / her electricity simply because the petitioner is a party in the suits pending before the Civil Court, the private parties are not entitled to say that he / she cannot get electricity ( referring the case study (2010) (3) WBLR (Cal) 539 before the Hon'ble High  Court ).

                                Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law her demand requires to be fulfilled. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

                                In the result, the complaint succeeds.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 113 of 2012 ( HDF 113 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the rest.

                The o.p. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority be directed to effect the electric service connection to the residence of the complainant as per schedule within 30 days from the date of this order giving top most priority.   

                The O.P. nos. 2 to 4 are hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the service connection, if thereby any resistance by anyone including  the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 against such supply of electricity in the said schedule premises, the o.p. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Bally P.S. The I/C, Bally P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Authority for providing such supply to the complainant in case of approach made by CESC Authority. 

                No costs, compensation and litigation costs are awarded. 

                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.