| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 20-11-2013. DATE OF S/R : 12-12-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 09-12-2014. Nirodbaran Mohanty, Son of late Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, Residing at 105/10, Khetra Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711102. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT. Versus - 1. The District Engineer, The CESC Ltd., having its Regional Office at 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S . Golabari, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101. 2. Smt. Suparna Mazumdar, w/o. Ajoy Kumar Mazumdar of 11 Haradeb Bhattacharjee Lane, 1st floor, P.S. Sibpur, 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 wasfiled by complainantU/S 12 of theC.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 has prayed for passing necessary directives upon the O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion being floor no. Gr. F1oor, 11, Haradeb Bhattacharjee Lane, Howrah 711102, and to restrain o.p. no. 2 from raising any obstruction against such installation.
- The o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority stated in their written version that the complainant paid MASD Bill of Rs. 2,930/- and that to attempts were made for electric connection through installing a separate meter (loop) at the premises of floor no. Gr. F1oor, 11, Haradeb Bhattacharjee Lane, Howrah 711102. The job could not be completed for forcible and unauthorized objection raised at the site by o.p. no. 2 namely Suparna Majumdar. It has no objection for installing the same if free access is available.
- The o.p. no. 2 submitted her written version contended interalia that the premises in question actually owned by Smt. Namita Mukherjee ( since deceased ) executed one deed of settlement in favour of her two daughters namely Smt. Suparna Majumdar ( o.p. no. 2) and Smt. Sutapa Banerjee, and the present complainant purchased the property of Smt. Sutapa Banerjee, measuring 4 cottah 14 chattack 23 sq. ft. through registered deed in the year 2010 by violation of the terms and condition of the registered deed of agreement of no. 4080 in the year 1993. Accordingly this answering o.p. no. 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract vide T.S. No. 144 of 2011 before the ld. 3rd Court of Civil Judge,( Sr. Division), Howrah. The o.p. no. 2 further opined that the existing electric meter / room is situated at the outside portion of the complainant and has no right to claim any electricity outside his purchase portion. But the on the contrary this answering o.p. has no objection or legal claim of the complainant against installation of separate meter for power supply to his demarcated portion ( herein complainant ) without disturbing the peaceful possession upon this answering o.ps. under such the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.i.e.,CESC ? Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for active consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant complied with all necessary technical formalities together with depositing necessary quotational money to the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority at the schedule premises on demand which differs from the existing occupied portion as a legal occupant. It appears that the o.p. no. 1 being public utility concern is eager to cater the service to the intending consumer i.e. complainant at his occupied premises. There is no deficiency in service on their part and nor did they commit any unfair trade practice. Their inability to install the meter was due to the objection raised by the o.p. no. 2. But the fact remains is that as the present situation, the consumer cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be forced to live in darkness when all the formalities including MASD Bill paid by him. The objection raised by the o.p. no. 2 cannot be sustained at the present situation on some fictitious considering electricity is a need based requirement of a civilized person. 6. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p., CESC Authority has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in question and that to they are ready to complete the job if free access is available at the proposed premises when quotational money was deposited by the complainant . Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 394 of 2013 ( HDF 394 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest without costs against O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority and dismissed without cost against o.p. no. 2. The O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority be directed to provide new electric connection through separate meter to the complainant at demarcated portion without encroaching the portion of other co-sharers against deed executed by the oritgina occupied i.e., Namita Banerjee, since deceased. If necessary separate inspection can be conducted with realization extra costs through raising MASD Bill within 45 days from the date of this order. The o.p. no. 2 is hereby restrained from causing new electric connection through separate meter. In case of any illegal objection raised by any person, complainant and o.p. nos. 1 CESC Authority shall approach to the local police station for help. No order as to compensation. 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.
| |
