DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M.A./28/2023
Arising out in C.C. No.778/2016
Complainant/s:- | Sri Debasish Sen =Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s:- | Sri Tapan Roy & Ors. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
Order No.34
Dated. 31.10.2023
Today is fixed for order.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1 is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 3 is present. Record is put up for order. Perused the petition dated 06/04/2023 filed by the Complainant which registered as M.A Case no. 28/2023.
Complainant being the petitioner filed the said M.A case. He alleged in the petition that Complainant is running business in a tenanted premises under O.P No. 1 and obtained valid trade license and also got electric connection under O.P No. 3 vide consumer no. 50067029007 and being a bonafide consumer paying electric bill regularly according to his consumption.
Electric meter where from he is getting supply of electricity is lying within the control of landlord/O.P No. 1 and supply of electricity is being disturbed constantly for which Complainant compelled to rush before this Commission.
He prayed for direction upon O.P No. 2 to remove the aforesaid meter relating to his service connection from the place where it has been installed and re-installed the same in the shop room of Complainant or any other suitable place.
O.P No. 1 by filing a W/O contesting the aforesaid petition. He denied the entire allegations made in the said petition and further contended that Saunak Chakraborty, Sr. Commercial Executive of CSCE, North suburban area during his inspection dated 08/03/2017 found that aforesaid meter is live meter and on that time shop room of the Complainant was lock and key for last six months.
O.P No. 2 also contesting the aforesaid petition by filing a separate W/O he also denied the entire allegations and further contended that Complainant is a bonafide consumer under him. He further stated that partial shifting of the meter of the petitioner inside the shop room is technically not possible. It can only be possible to install in a common service position.
Decisions with Reasons:-
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued before this commission that supply of electricity is essential service and that should not be disturbed in any way. He cited a decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in (2011) 2 WBLR (Cal) 631. On perusal of the said decision we find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court pleased to observe:-
CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, could not give supply of electricity to the petitioner for objection raised by the third respondent.
2. Counsel for the third respondent submits as follows. The petitioner is not a bona fide tenant. He is not paying rent, nor has he obtained permission from the third respondent for taking supply of electricity.
Contd. To Page No. 2. . . ./
: : 2 : :
M.A./28/2023
Arising out in C.C. No.778/2016
3. In my opinion, none of the above things can be treated as a good ground for refusing supply of electricity to the petitioner. Admittedly, he is an occupier of a portion of the premises and he needs supply of electricity. Under the circumstances, in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 he is entitled to supply of electricity. Needless to say that the third respondent is free to take steps for his eviction and recovery of rent arrears.
4. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. Within a week from the date the petitioner complies with the formalities and pays the charge, the license shall supply him electricity. If necessary, the licensee will be free to take police help at his expense. Supply given in terms of this order shall not create his any right, title or interest in the property, nor shall it create any equity in his favour for any purpose. No costs. Certified xerox.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1 raised strong objection. He submitted that petition should not be allowed.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 3 raised strong objection. He submitted that shifting meter in the shop room of Complainant is not technically possible. He did not assigned any proper reason as to why it is not possible to shift the meter in the shop room of Complainant. Without proper reason how they made aforesaid submission before this Commission.
Now a days, CESC authority are giving prior information about the date when they shall visit the meter for recording the consumption of the consumer. What would be harm if the meter is installed in the shop room of Complainant is not clear before this Commission.
Accordingly we find that aforesaid type of objection bears no merit and in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court such type of objections of O.P No. 1 & 2 is not accepted.
Having consider the entire matter we think that the petition filed by the Complainant should be allowed for the interest of justice.
In the results, petition succeeds.
Hence,
It is ordered:-
That the petition dated 06/04/2023 filed by the Complainant which registered as M.A./28/2023 is allowed on contest against O.P No. 1 & 2 and allowed ex-parte against O.P No. 3.
O.P No. 2 is directed to shift the meter relating to service connection of Complainant from the present place to the inside of shop room of Complainant as it be identified by the Complainant within 20 days from this day and submit compliance report before this Commission failing which Complainant shall have liberty to move before this Commission for further order.
The aforesaid M.A. case is thus disposed of.
To 29/01/2024 for argument.
Member President
