Sri Alik Biswas,

son of late Suroj Biswas,

of  63/11/1, Nabin Senapati Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, and residing at 94/1, Kasundia Road,

P.S. Shibpur, District  –Howrah.---------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.    Sunil Samanta,    

       son of late Kartick Samanta,  

       of 63/11/1, Nabin Senapati Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

       Howrah – 711 101.

2.     The District Engineer,

        CESC Ltd., 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),

        P.S. Golabari,       

        District – Howrah,

        PIN – 711101.---------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,  M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended up to date has prayed for a direction to be given upon the  O.P. no. 2   alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. no. 2, CESC Authority for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant and to restrain o.p. no. 1 from raising any obstruction against such installation.

2.                  The complainant applied for installation of new meter  before the o.p. no.

2, CESC Authority having deposited Rs. 200/- as earnest money to his occupied portion as a tenant. The CESC Authority inspected the site on 23-03-2013 but the same could not be carried out due to objection raised by o.p. no. 1, i.e., the landlord and free access was not available to the existing meter board position. Finding no other alternative he ( complainant )  has lodged this complaint before the  Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 2.

3.                  The o.p. no. 2  vide his written version stated that the complainant

by filing an application on 18-03-2013 for 0.2 KW. Commercial  load. Attempt was made for conducting inspection at the complainant premises but could not accelerated due to objection raised by o.p. no. 1 i.e., landlord for which free access was not available at the complainant premises. They have no objection for installation of new meter against the inspection followed by deposition necessary charges including restraining the o.p. no. 1.

4.                  The O.P. no. 1 vide their written version contending interalia that the

instant suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary party and all the co-sharers of the suit property are to be added as necessary parties. The O.P. no. 1 further opined that the complainant is a tenant in respect of a shop at the ground floor of the schedule premises which is the commercial part of the suit building.  The complainant is a defaulter of making payment of rent since December, 2003 onwards and due to reasonable requirements and on the ground of defaulter of making payment of rent this answering O.P. no. 1 has filed a eviction suit being  T.S. No. 7 of 2013 against the complainant and the complainant is contesting the same and the said suit is pending before the 2^nd Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Howrah, for which the complainant as a tenant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for against which the case may be rejected with costs.

5.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 2  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant applied before the o.p. no. 2  i.e., CESC Authority after depositing Rs. 200/- as earnest money. It appears that o.p. no. 2 CESC Authority made an attempt for site inspection at the complainant premises but the same could not be accelerated due to resistance of the o.p. no. 1  i.e., landlord. It also visualized that the o.p. no. 2 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the installation of meter to the intending consumer i.e. complainant . There is no deficiency in service on their part and nor did they commit any unfair trade practice. Their inability to install the meter was due to objection raised by the o.p. no. 1 i.e., landlord. We have also considered the written version of o.p. no. 2 but the fact remains that as the present situation the complainant cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be forced to live in darkness due to fictitious ground considering electricity is a need based requirement of a civilized person.

7.         Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p. no. 2, CESC Authority has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in tenanted portion ( herein so called complainant ) and that they are ready to complete the job if free access at the proposed premises is available with  free of all  incumbrances.

            Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.

            Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 126 of 2013 ( HDF 126 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p. no.  2 and dismissed  against o.p. no. 1 without costs.

      The O.P. no. 2, CESC Authority, be directed to install new separate meter after observing all technical formalities against deposition of service connection charges, security deposit etc. to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 60 days from the date of this order.   

      The o.p.  no. 1 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of installation of new separate meter at the complainant’s occupied portion.

      In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and o.p. no.  2, CESC Authority shall approach to the local police station for help.

       No order as to compensation. 

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.      

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          (    P. K. Chatterjee)

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

     (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                (  T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                            President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.