DATE OF FILING : 27-07-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 28-11-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 09-04-2012.
Md. Irfan,
Son of late Md. Isha
Of 23, Cowies Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
2. CESC Limited,
having its office
at CESC House, 1, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700001.
3. Jowed Anwar,
Son of lt. Samsul Haque,
18, Cowies Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complaint case ( HDF 57 of 2011 ) was filed by the complainant U/S
12 the C.P. Act, 1986, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for supply of new electric connection in the schedule property i.e. at 23 Cowies Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah, together other reliefs.
2. The complainant, owner and occupier of the schedule mentioned property applied for new electric connection on 13-12-2010 and inspection was conducted on 22-12-2010. Accordingly MASD Bill being no. 06/22831/10/1/1 dated 23-12-2010 as security money. The complainant accordingly deposited the said amount. When the O.P nos. 1 & 2 went to install new electric meter the O.P. no. 3 raised objection resulting non installation of the electric meter. Hence the case.
3. The O.P. no. 3 by filing separate written versions contended interalia that he is one of the share holders of the holding no. 23, Cowies Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur, District - Howrah ; that his consent for installation of the new meter was not obtained ; that a Title Appeal being no. 132 of 2009 is still pending before the Ld. 2nd Additional District Judge, Howrah, and as such the complaint should be dismissed.
4. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority by filing separate written version admitted that the inspection was carried out on 22-12-2010 and the complainant deposited the requisite amount towards security money but for the objection of the O.P. no. 3 the installation work could not be carried out.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination.
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 :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 provides that it is the duty of the Electricity Authority to accept the application for separate meter and to request the owner or the occupier of the premises to provide new electric meter to the applicant within the stipulated period of one month. The decision reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2897 in fact fortifies the claim of the complainant wherein Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the Electricity Act ( Section 67 ) 2003 has made provision to enable the distribution of licensee to carry out works for the purpose of supply of electricity to the owners or the occupiers of the premises. Naturally the claim of the O.P. no. 3 that Title Appeal No. 132 of 2009 is pending between the parties cannot have any effect upon this Forum in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is immaterial if any civil suit / appeal is pending against the complainant for determination of their share.
7. The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 has candidly admitted that they have no objection for installation of a new meter if a suitable location for installation of the same is indicated.
8. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and they are duty bound to supply electricity to the complainant. Accordingly we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed as there is deficiency in service. It is immaterial if the O.P. no. 3 has strong objection or not. Both the points are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 57 of 2011 ( HDF 57 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 3 without cost.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to provide new electric connection through separate meter in the name of the complainant at the schedule mentioned property within 30 days from the date of this order, with further direction to take recourse to
the provision of Section 163 of Electricity Act, 2003, in case of resistance on the part of the O.P no.3.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
