DATE OF FILING : 25.02.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 08.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 09.10.2015.
Akbari Khatoon,
wife of Md. Safik
of 28/1, H. K. Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Belur ( old Bally ),
District Howrah,
PIN 711102. …………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Md. Bashir,
son of late Md. Mobin
of 28/1, H. K. Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Belur ( old Bally ),
District Howrah,
PIN 711102.
2. Chief Engineer,
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regina Office,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101.……………………………………………...…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 petitioner, Akbari Khatoon, against Md. Bashir & Chief Engineer, CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office, Howrah, praying for direction upon the o.p. no. 2 to install electricity in the premises of the petitioner and also direct the o.ps. to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of proceeding.
- The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner and the o.p. no. 1 are co owners in respect of holding no. 28/1, H.K. Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Belur ( old Bally ), District Howrah, and after the demise of father of her husband as well as father of o.p. no. 1 they have inherited the holding. There was one electric connection and after the demise of father in law of petitioner, this petitioner applied for a separate electric connection for her before the o.p. no. 2 and she paid the MASD Bill on 20.01.2015 and inspection was made on 19.01.2015 but the o.p. no. 2 refused to install electricity sending a letter on 14.02.2015. Electricity being very essential, the o.p. no. 1 has no right to object in the installation of electricity.
- The o.p. no. 2, CESC Ltd., contested the case by filing a written objection denying allegations against them and submitted that the petitioner applied for a new supply and she paid the bill but the job could not be executed as o.p. no. 1, Md. Basir raised objection in doing the same. So the case against them be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service as the petitioner failed to provide free access to the premises.
- The o.p. no. 1 was served with a notice from the Forum but did not appear and contest the case and so the case was heard ex parte against o.p. no. 1.
- 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 :
6. All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as relevant document showing her deposit of a sum ofRs. 1,070/- for installation of electricity before the CESC Ltd. It is also noticed from a letter of District Engineer, CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office, dated 14.02.2015 that the petitioner was advised to arrange for access of o.p. no. 2 to the supply place or the place of installation. Thus, it is noticed that the CESC Authority is interested to render electric supply to the petitioner. Regarding obstruction by o.p. no. 1 this Forum finds that the o.p. no. 1 did not contest the case and the case was heard ex parte against him and so necessary order would be passed against the o.p. no. 1. Electricity Authority submitted that there was obstruction from o.p. no. 1 and so they failed to render the fresh connection and thus this Forum finds that there was no deficiency in service on their part as they wrote a letter to the petitioner informing her to have free access into the property and no evidence that the petitioner provided free access to the o.p. no. 2.
In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to fresh electric connection, as electricity cannot be denied to an occupier as to whatever his interest is in the property.
In the result, the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 80 of 2015 ( HDF 80 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.p. no. 2 and ex parte against o.p. no. 1 without costs.
The petitioner is entitled to fresh electric connection in her premises as applied before the CESC Ltd., o.p. no. 2, who is directed to render such fresh electric line to the premises of the petitioner and in case of any obstruction the CESC Ltd., o.p. no. 2, will be at liberty to take the help of the local police. The o.p. no. 2, CESC Ltd., is to do the job within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution after expiry of the appeal period.
No order is passed as to compensation and cost as there was obstruction which prevented them.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
