Date of filing : 21.05.2015
Date of S/R : 30.06.2015
Date of Order : 10.12.2015
Deepak Kumar Gupta,
S/o- Ranjit Kumar Gupta,
33/34, Bhagwan Ganguly Lane,
P.S & District-Howrah-711101………………………………………….Complainant
Vs.
1) The CESC Limited,
District Engineer,
433/1, G.T. Road (N),
Howrah-711101
2) The CESC Limited,
The Chairman, Victoria House,
Chowrangee Square (Registered office)
Kolkata.
3) ARUN KUMAR GUPTA,
S/o Lt. Ramesh Kumar Gupta,
33/34, Bhagwan Ganguly Lane,
P.S & District-Howrah,
PIN 711101………………………………….……………………………….. Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
FINAL ORDER
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Dipak Kr. Gupta against the O.P.s, CESC Ltd and O.P.3 Arun Kr. Gupta praying for direction upon the O.P. 1 & 2 for installation a new meter with the police .
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. 1 & 2 being service e provider. The petitioner applied for new electric meter from CESC Ltd and they sanctioned the same to be installed to his premises but one of his co-sharer, Arun Kr. Gupta wrote a letter to the District Engineer CESC for non installation of the meter stating he was a co-owner. The petitioner lodged G.D. No. 1268 dated 14.05.2015 against Arun Kr. Gupta before Howrah P.S. for his illegal activities. Police came and asked both of them to live peacefully and advised Arun Kr. Gupta not to disturb the CESC men from installation of meter. But inspite of that he threatened the CESC representative and so the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made against them and submitted they made attempt to install the meter on 28.4.15, 20.05.15 ,19.6.15 and 30.06.2015 but failed as the co-sharer of the premises put padlock of the door. They are always ready and willing but fail to install the meter. And there is no deficiency on their part.
The O.P. No. 3 contested the case filing a separate W/v denying allegation made against him and submitted that the premises No. 33/34 Bhagwan Ganguly Road belonging to their grandfather and after his demise the property was partitioned between the legal heirs and by dint of partition deed the whole property was divided into five plots being demarcated A,B,C,D,E. The O.p. and his brother possess E plot and the father of the petitioner possess plot A and this petitioner though resided in plot A yet wants to install electric meter in plot B wherein he has no right and thus his prayer be dismissed with cost.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Whether the case maintainable in the present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reason :
All this issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner Depak Kr. Gupta filed affidavit in chief along with documents showing that he made the security deposit, earnest money and service connection charge and the O.P. 1 admitted that the petitioner made application and the employees of O.P. 1 & 2 went to install the electric meter but they were obstructed. The petitioner also filed his Adhar Card showing his residential address , 33/34 Bhawan Ganguly Lane . In this modern age a man cannot be deprived his right to get electricity and water which are the basic needs of a man specially in our city live and this petitioner is the co-sharer of the property and has every right to get separate electric connection in his premises and installation of new meter therein and the O.P. No. 3 being the other co-sharer of the property has no right to object in the installation of such new meter in the premises of the petitioner. Further the O.P. 1 & 2 have no negligence on their part for installation of new meter as they made several attempts for installation of a new meter.
In view of above discussion and findings the case succeeds .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the CC 197/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 but without cost and with cost against o.p. no.3.
The petitioner is entitled to fresh electric connection if not there and get a fresh electric meter and the O.P. 1 & 2 are directed to give such connection by installing a new meter in the premises of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order. This Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 & 2 and so no compensation is awarded.
As regard litigation cost this Forum found that the delay in installing new meter to the petitioner by the O.P. 1 & 2 resulted from the objection raised by O.P No. 3 which to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of order. The prayer for police help is also allowed and both the petitioner as well as the O.P. 1 is given liberty to approach the I.C. of the local P.S. while giving such new installation of meter . The parties not complying the above order of the Forum within the stipulated time the petitioner is giving liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me.
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah.
