ORDER NO. 3 DT. 22.3.11
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT
Appellant is present through Mr. Samir Kr. Das, Ld. Advocate. Respondent No. 1 in person and Respondent No. 3 through Mr. Sanjoy Das, Ld. Advocate, are present. Respondent 2 is absent on calls. Heard both sides in full. Judgement/order is passed as under :-
This Appeal is by the complainant against the judgement and order dt. 6.10.10 passed in Complaint Case No. HDF 55 of 2010 by the Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant applied for a new electric connection along with a separate electric meter from the CESC Ltd., which having been denied the above the complaint case has been filed. Upon contested hearing the Forum below has dismissed the complaint case on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 3 and ex parte against the OP No. 2 only on the ground that on scrutiny of the papers and documents filed by the complainant it could not be concluded that the complainant occupies the premises at 66, G.T. Road (South), 4th Floor, P.S. & Dist. Howrah.
Admittedly the OP No. 1 is a co-tenant of the complainant in the aforesaid premises in question. The said co-tenant before the Forum below has categorically submitted that she has no objection if the complainant gets electricity through a separate meter from the CESC Ltd. in the said premises in question. The said OP no. 1 is personally present today before this Commission at the hearing of this Appeal. She submits in person that the complainant is her co-tenant and resides in the said premises. The OP No. 2 is the landlord. He did not appear in the Forum below in spite of service of notice of the complaint case.
From the materials on record it is evident that on the basis of the application for separate meter and electricity in the premises of the complainant an inspection was held by the OP No. 3, CESC Ltd. Upon such inspection the said OP No. 3 being satisfied about the occupation of the complainant in the premises in question sent an offer letter mentioning MACD bill and thereafter accepted the amount of MACD bill from the complainant on 7.6.10. It has further been observed in the impugned order that when the men and officers of the OP No. 3 went to install the separate electric meter for the complainant in the premises in question, there was obstruction at the site for which such installation could not be made. In the face of the aforesaid findings made by the Forum below the particular observation that on scrutiny of the papers and documents filed by the complainant no conclusion could be made as to the occupation of the complainant in the premises in question in the self-same order is absolutely perverse. We, therefore, set aside the said observation made by the Forum below.
At the hearing of this Appeal the Ld. Advocate for the CESC Ltd. has categorically submitted before this Commission that it has no objection to supply electricity through a separate meter to the complainant in his aforesaid premises. In view of the aforesaid submission and more particularly, regard being had to the provisions of law that the occupier of the premises in question is entitled to supply of electricity through a separate meter irrespective of any objection by the landlord in this regard, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity. The impugned judgement and order of the Forum below is accordingly set aside. The complaint case is, therefore, allowed with direction upon the CESC Ltd. to supply electricity to the complainant in his aforesaid premises through a separate meter by following the necessary formalities as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from this day. It is further recorded that if there be any resistance by anyone against such supply of electricity in the premises of the complainant by the CESC Ltd., then it will be at liberty to take necessary assistance and/or protection from the concerned Police Station and if and when such approach is made by the CESC Ltd. to the concerned police station, then the Officer-in-Charge of said police station will be under obligation to provide necessary assistance and/or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Ltd. for providing such supply to the complainant. This Appeal is thus disposed of.
