DATE OF FILING : 22.07.2014..
DATE OF S/R : 09.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14.10.2015.
Smt. Shibani Das,
wife of Sri Ram Chandra Das,
resident of 1, Sultanpur, Buxarah, P.S. Jagacha,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101. .. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Dy. Chief Engineer ( Distribution ),
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T . Road ( N ),
Howrah – 711101.
2. Padma Rani Das,
wife of late Anil Das.
3. Tarak Das,
son of late Anil Das,
4. Smt. Anita Das,
wife of Sri Tarak Das,
all of 1, Sultanpur, Santragachi ( Bagdipara ),
P.S. Jagacha, District Howrah,
PIN 71111.
5. Smt. Manju Banick,
wife of Sri Sunil Banick,
resident of 2, Sultanpur, Chunavati, P.S. Sankrail,
District Howrah,
PIN 711317. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Smt. Sibani Das, against Deputy Chief Engineer ( Distribution ), CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office, Howrah, and four others, praying for a direction on the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. to install new electric connection to the premises of the petitioner and also to direct the o.p. no. 5, Smt. Manju Banik, to make free access to the meter board for the employees of CESC Ltd. removing obstruction at the time of installation of new connection.
- The case of the petitioner is that he has been residing at premises no. 1, Sultanpur, Santragachi, P.S. Jagacha, Howrah. She is the owner of property as legal heir after demise original owner, Padma Rani Das, who died leaving behind two sons and three daughters out which petitioner is one daughter. The husband of petitioner is rickshaw puller and suffering from different ailment and her son is a student in a school. She applied for electricity before o.p. no. 1 when the o.p. nos. 2 to 5 illegally and forcefully disconnected her electric connection to the room and kept the meter room under lock and key. The o.p. no. 1 received Rs. 1,070/- as installation charge but without free access the o.p. no. 1 cannot render new connection to the petitioner. Then she field this case.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and further submitted that the o.p. company received application for a fresh connection on 19.5.2014 from the petitioner and the they inspected the premises and after complying all formalities the o.p. company admitted to install supply to the room of the petitioner on 23.7.2014 and 20.10.2014 but could not do the same as objection raised by the landlords by putting lock on the meter room. They are ready and willing to render connection and there was no deficiency in service on their part and so the case against them be dismissed with costs.
- The o.p. nos. 2 to 5 though appeared in the case yet they did not file any written objection to contest the case and thus the case is heard ex part against them.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.,CESC Ltd. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case, the petitioner, Sibani Das, filed affidavit in evidence and also filed documents proving the fact that she is an occupier in premises no. 1, Sultanpur Buxurah, Jagacha P.S. She has also filed the CESC bill showing her deposit of fees and her letter to the o.p. no. 1 requesting to install new meter but in vain. The o.p. n. 1 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner applied for new connection and they inspected the premises and when attempted to install electric supply to the premises of the petitioner on 23.7.2014 and 20.07.2014 then the same installation could not be done as the o.p. nos. 2 to 5 raised objection at the site. There was no deficiency in service on their part as they are always ready and willing to render such connection This Forum accepted the submission of the CESC Ltd.
- In view of the submission of the ld. counsels of both sides and keeping in mind the cases of the parties as well as the present position of law this Forum finds that actually the o.p. attempted to give connection and thus they cannot be found guilty of deficiency in service on the other hand the petitioner is entitled to electricity. Thus keeping in mind the necessity of the petitioner, the o.p. no. 1 be directed to render electricity at the earliest opportunity positively within one month and this Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 who could not provide electricity as could not get free access to the meter board.
In view of above discussion and findings the Forum is of the opinion that the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 405 of 2014 ( HDF 405 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against the o.p. nos. 2 to 5 but without costs.
The petitioner is entitled to have new electric connection to the premises and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to install new electric connection in the premises of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and in case of any obstruction the o.p. no. 1 is to take the assistance of local p.s. 2 to 5 and the other o.ps. are directed not to cause any obstruction in rendering of such new electric connection and the o.ps. failing to comply the order of the Forum the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
