DATE OF FILING                    :     10-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      27-11-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28-11-2014.

Sri Sukdev Samui,

son of late Bipin Behari Samui,

residing at 2/15, Krishna Taran Naskar Lane,

P.S. Malipanchghara, District – Howrah.…………………………  COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         District  Enginer,

  CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,

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

  Howrah – 711 101.

   

  2.         Sri Dilip Shaw,

  3.         Sri Tarak Nath  Shaw,

  4.         Sri Raj Kumar  Shaw,            

  o.p. nos. 2 to 4 are sons of late Sobhnath Shaw,

  all are residing at 35, Jayabibi Road, P.S. Malipanchghara,

  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

   

  1. The instant case was filed by complainantU/S 12 of theC.P.Act, 1986, as amended up to date has prayed for a direction to be given upon theO.Ps.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 direction upon the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant and to restrain o.p. nos. 2 to 4 from raising any obstruction against such installation.
  2. The complainant applied for installation of new meterin the tone of load 8 KW ( IND ) before the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority having deposited Rs. 2000/- as earnest money to run his lathe machine under the name and style of Tulshi Engineering works in a rented house and area 9 & ½ ft. X 25 ft. at holding no. 35 Jaya Bibi Road, P.S. Malipanchghora, District – Howrah,The o.p. no. 1 CESC Authority has given his best efforts to conduct the site inspection on 27-08-2013 but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 to 4 and no free access was available at site. Finding no other alternative complainant has lodged this complainant before the Hon’ble Fourm alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1.
  3. The o.p. nos. 1 vide their written version stated that the complainant filed an application on 25-02-2013 for 8 KW. industrial load. Attempts were made for conducting inspection at the complainant premises but could not accelerated due to objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 to 4 for which free access was not available at the complainant premises. They have no objection for effecting the service connection with a separate meter against the inspection followed by deposition necessary charges including restraining the o.p. nos. 2 to 4.
  4. The o.p. nos. 2 to 4 appeared and did not file written version but on the contrary they preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission challenging the interim order no. 4dated 03-10-2013 of theForum against restoration of normal power supply at the complainant’s premises which has been disconnected by this answering o.ps. on 29-08-2013 in the name of Sagarmal Lodha under consumer no. 62051045004 where the power supply was being feed to the complainant. Hon’ble StateCommission vide his order dated 6-01-2014 affirmed the said interim order no. 4 dated 03-10-2013 of the Forum.Thereafter the instant case was proceeded on his own fate. Accordingly, the case is being heard on ex parte against this answering o.ps.
  5. Notice was served upon the o.p. no. 1 CESC Ltd. but they neither appeared nor filed any written version for which the case was heard ex parte against o.p. no. 1.
  6. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 ?

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

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

    

   7.  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant applied before the o.p. nos. 1 CESC Authority after depositing Rs. 2000/- as earnest money. It appears that o.p. no. 1 CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. nos. 2 to 4. It also visualized that the o.p. no. 1  being a public utility concern is eager to cater the installation of meter to the intending consumer i.e. complainant. There is no deficiency in service on his part and nor did he commit any unfair trade practice. Its inability to effect the connection  was due to objection raised by the o.p. nos. 2 to 4. We have also considered all the aspects and concluded as the present moment the complainant cannot be deprived  from electricity to run his business against self employment for his livelihood.

    

   8.  Therefore we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant should be allowed in terms of  Sec, 43(1) and 43(3) of electricity Act, 2003 where the sub section (3) of the said Section provides that a failure to effect of such supply within specified period would entitle  penal consequences.  It is, therefore,  untenable in law to suggest that the statutory duty on the part of the licensee can be discharged for the failure of the complainant to provide necessary free access for supply of electric energy.   In the event the licensee finds that there are obstruction or difficulties in effecting service connection and the applicant is unable to provide way leave, it would be the duty of licensee to undertake necessary works as provided under Part VIII of the Electricity Act,2003 read with the works of Licensee Rules, 2006 to ensure that such supply is effected . 

    

               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.  316 of 2013 ( HDF 316 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte  against the rest.

         The O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority, be directed to effect the new service connection  in the name of the complainant at holding no. 35, Jaya Bibi Road, P.S. Malipanchghor, District – Howrah, after conducting site inspection together with raising   MASD Bill  within 45 days from the date of this order. 

         The o.p.  nos. 2 to 4 are  hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the complainant’s tenanted premises.

         In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and o.p. no. 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.