Present :    Biswanath De  ….   President

            The brief  facts of the case of the complainant is that the petitioner through her daughter made an application before the Op no.2 for getting electricity in her own name but the OP no.1 filed objection against such prayer and due to such objection the Opposite party no.2 did not give electricity. The petitioner went to he office of the oP no.2 several times and prayed for giving electric connection but the oP no.2 on the3 plea of objection by Op no.1 declined to give connection. Hence, this complaint .

            The Op no.1 has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The case of the oP no.1 is that the scheduled mentioned property was gifted to the Op no.1 by his deceased father , Haricharan Banerjee on 11.05.1990 vide gift deed no.1875 registered in Sub Registry office at Pandua and the Opposite party no.1 duly recorded his name in B.L. & L.R.O. office. In the scheduled mentioned property the petitioner has no right , title and interest. The petitioner is living in a room as a licensee under the Op no.1. Hence, there is no need to take any separate electricity line to the name of the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            The Op no.2 and 3 have contested the case by filing  Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The Op no.2 and 3 submit that the petitioner in the year 2014 filed an M.P. case vide case no.143/14 at Executive Magistrate Sadar, Hooghly against present oP and Kasinath Banerjee and on the basis of the court’s order this Op members went to the spot and asked the complainant to give way leave permission and wiring and meter installation spot to be provided. But she failed to comply said requirement of office of the oP. Thereafter, on 20.4.2015 an inspection was made by this Op to the premises of the complainant and at that time it was also found that her wiring was incomplete and at the time of said inspection the oP no.1 raised strong objection. Thereafter, the oP sent a letter to the complainant , explaining their difficulties to give electric connection in her premises. So there is not deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.2 and 3 and they pray for dismissal of the complaint.

            Complainant filed photo copy of application form duly filled in submitted by her to the office of the WBSEDCL, Pandua, order sheet of M.P.Case no. 1443 of 2014, Self certificate by the applicant. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and WNA. Op no.1 filed Written version. Op no.2 filed Written version and W.N.A.

POINTS FOR DECISION :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                              
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?                                                                                               
3. Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

            All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

            We have gone through the evidence in chief of the complainant and Op no.1 and Op no.3 and other documents filed by all parties. It is admitted position that complainant and Op are living in same piece of land . Complainant has house therein and one case is pending in the Civil court. Op no.3 did not give electric connection due to Civil case pending and insufficient space in the house of the complainant. The complainant is a village illiterate lady . The Op no.1 is the son of the complainant .The oP no.1 only has share3 in the property. But such right cannot prevent complainant from taking the electric connection in her house. Electricity and drinking water are the essential requirement of human being to sustain his/her life and Op no.1 is debarred from raising any objection in pretext of any right. It appears also that vide order no.13 dated 18.7.2017 , the Op no.3 was directed to give connection and the same has been complied by the op no.3 and at present the complainant is enjoying electricity. So , there is no bar to allow the complaint case in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, it is –

                                                                                                          Ordered

            That the complaint case no. 108 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. Op no. 2 and 3 are directed to protect the connection which has already been given by the order no.13 dated 18.7.2017 to the complainant  at any cost and shall take their energy charge as per meter reading. 

           Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.