West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/430/2009

Mintu Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sentu Das. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Shyamapada Roy.

14 Jan 2010

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
APPEAL NO. 430 of 2009
1. Mintu Das.S/O Late Akshay Kr. Das. Nani Saha Sarani, Majerhati, PO & PS. Nimta. Kolkata- 700049. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Sentu Das.S/O Late Akshay Kr. Das. Shahid Nani Saha Sarani, Majerhati, PO & PS. Nimta, Dist. 24-Parganas (North), Kolkata-700049.2. C.E.S.C. Ltd. North Suburban Regd. Office. 32, B.T. Road. Kamarhati, PS. Belgharia, Kolkata- 700058. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Mr. Shyamapada Roy., Advocate for
For the Respondent :Mr. Barun Prosad. Mr. Srijan Nayak. Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay. , Advocate

Dated : 14 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

3/14.01.2010.

 

Appellant through Mr. Shyamapada Roy, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. S. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 files Vokalatnama.  Heard Mr. Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.  We have considered the application for condonation on which argument was advanced by the Petitioner supporting the same and by the Respondents opposing the same.  We have considered the facts stated and the circumstances appearing therefrom in the matter of delay in preferring the appeal.  The Appellant has stated that the Judgement reached the Appellant on 12.09.2009 but he being a patient and having suffered of the ailments as also after operation, there was a communication gap between the Appellant and his Advocate.  In the above circumstances and in the interest of justice we condone the delay and the application is allowed.  Delay being condoned we take up the matter for admissibility of the appeal.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  Perused the impugned judgement, memo of appeal and other relevant documents.  Considered.  Let the Appeal be admitted and registered.  By consent of parties appeal was taken up for hearing and talk of settlement arose.  Parties agreed to disposal of the present proceeding on the following terms.

 

The Respondent No. 1 will construct a meter room in the common passage requisite for accommodating meters for Appellant as also Respondent No. 1 according to the prescription of the C.E.S.C. authorities and such construction will be at the cost of Respondent No. 1 exclusively.  C.E.S.C. authorities will provide electric meter for the Appellant as also for the Respondent No. 1 in the said meter room providing separate meters.  The Appellant will not raise any objection in respect of construction of the meter room or in shifting the meter in the said meter room.  C.E.S.C. authorities will provide electric connection to both the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 through their respective meter in the meter room to be constructed as aforesaid.  This order will not prejudice the rights and contention of any of the parties in the partition suit allegedly pending before the Civil Court.  In giving connection C.E.S.C. authorities if feels requirement of assistance of local police on its requisition local police will render all assistance for compliance of the present order.


MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT ,