Judgment On 28.07.2005

Present. Sri B.K. Samanta, President

              Shri H. Bhhatacharya Member

  This is a case for claim and compensation

  The complainant’s case is short is that the complainant is small business same . He is an empowered youth and for his employment he sums a Hotel in the name Hotel Chintamoni. Of which his wife Anjali Ghorai in the properitor. For the electric connection in his premises he applied to the Op and deposited Rs.3600/- as per quotation. But in spite of repeated demand the OPs and nor giving electric connection for which the business is almost to step and he is facing huge los under the circumstances, he prays for electric connection and compensation.

     The OPs nor is contested the case by filing a W/s wherein he denied the material allegation with case and also stated that the case is not maintainable and averments of the petition and false and baseless. He further stated that the petition in the same of  Banessar Ghorai. The said Banessar Ghorai was a defaults consumer for Rs.39,702.68/- against meter No. C/209 in the same Hotel premises. The present petition is claiming to install a new electric connection in the premises which was owned by the prediction of this petition. Petitioner was a defaults in payment of bill and hence the disconnection was due on 16.03.2000 due to stating total on the stating due of Rs.39,702,68. Only, Accordingly to B.SEb rule the Ops the entitled to get the same and the petitioner cannot delay the licitly under any circumstances. The petition delivery filed to have separate line/connection in the same premises to the OPs in having dues entitlement.

                In these circumstances, for dismissal under case.

                                                                                Points for consideration

On the basis of the above pleadings on the parties the following points are taken up for consideration

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part to the OP?
3. Is the complainant entitled to have electric line?
4. To what relief if any the complainant is entitled to?

                                                           Decision

Point No.1-4. All the parties are taken up together for consideration on they are interlinks. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant is a consumer. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant deposited the amount is quotation. Naturally it can be said that after proper enquiry the OP issued the quotation which has been paid by the complainant. It is the case to OP that his predecessor has not cleared the due for which the disconnection has been made. But no premises has been stated in the W/s as regards default is payment of dues. Nothing has been mentioned in the written statement whether notice has been served regarding dis-connection. More owner the other co-share i.e. the brother who complainant have been provided separate electric meter in the same premises as stated by the complainant has not taken by the OP. If there was any clues of the father to the complainant and the complaint is liable to pay to same then why other co-sharer with same premises when provided separate meter without payment of premises dues to the father? The decision reported in 1112005(1) CPR 554 clearly says that liability of arrange of electricity bill of premises owner cannot be put on submitting purchase with properly. The board cannot claim arrange of bill of electricity consumer by premises owner Board would be negligent is not trending connection/meter in the name of purchase on other ground that premises was in warren of bill which had failed to clean.

                To in the instant cases as per  principle laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court we can say that tat this stage and circumstances the electrics of the premises dues can be cast up to the complainant in giving new connection. At lest the OP can never be same by using public Demand Convey Act. The complainant is entitled to have electric line with one giving previous dues of person owner. The Ops and in deficiency in service providing electric line to the complainant even after deposited by quotation by the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to have compensation to the same. Thus these points are disposed of accordingly in favour with complainant. In our view the case succeeds.

                                                                                               Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The Op is directed to provide electric line where complainant and compensation Rs.500/-  by one month from this date failing which the complainant is entitled to have the same by way of execution through this Forum expiry of other period mentioned above.