DATE OF FILING                    : 27-09-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            : 22-11-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      : 01-04-2013.

Badal Roy,

son late Bejoy  Gopal Roy,

of  5, Ram Kumar Ganguly Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

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

Versus   -

District Engineer,

CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,

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

District –Howrah.

Panchanon Maity,

of 8/2, Ram Kumar Ganguly Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

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

The instant case  filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as

amended against 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 has  prays for direction upon the o.p. no. 1 for effecting new electric service connection through separate meter  together with  compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. no. 1 in spite of observing the necessary formalities including deposition of MASD bills by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of  electricity for want of free /easy access to the complainant premises. 

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

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

The O.P. no. 2 on the other hand through their written version stated that the

passage enjoyed by the O.P. no. 2 is not common with the complainant and the complainant has no right to use the same for the purpose of electricity, water connection etc. as mentioned in the site map of the so-called purchased deed. The present case so constituted is completely misconceived and the petitioner has been illegally trying to create right over the common passage for which the complaint is to be  dismissed forthwith.

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      :

Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Since the complainant

deposited the quotational money against  the MASD Bill under the head of new service connection charge and security deposit to the O.P. no. 1  i.e., CESC Authority  and the O.P. no. 1 is willing to effect the new service connection,  the objection raised by O.P no. 2 cannot stand for effecting the proposed service connection in accordance of provision U/S 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 him electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation to give him electricity simply because the petitioner is a party suffering from electricity, the private parties are not entitled to say that he 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 his demand requires to be fulfilled.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 125 of 2012 ( HDF 125 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest without costs  against  the O.P.  no. 1 and dismissed without cost against the O.P. no. 2.

                The O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority be directed to effect the service connection to the residence of the complainant as per schedule through common passage against purchase deed as demarcated in the site plan  within 30 days from the date of this order giving top most priority.

                If there be any resistance by anyone including the O.P. no. 2 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 Shibpur P.S. The I/C, Shibpur 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 premises in case of approach made by CESC Authority.

                No costs  is awarded in the nature of compensation and litigation.

                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.