Maidul Mallick,

son of late Yakub Mallick,

Residing at 150, Mahendra Bhattcharya Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The CESC Ltd.,

having its registered office

at CESC House,

Kolkata – 700072.

2.      The  District Engineer,

CESC Ltd.,

having its regional office at

433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,

District – Howrah.

3.      Nashima Begum,

wife of  Gora Mallick.  

4.      Mamud Mallick,

son of Gora Mallick,

both residing at 150, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road,

P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

Pin – 711104. ------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                   P    R    E     S    E    N     T

                                 President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A., LLB, WBHJS.

Member     :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F   I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

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

amended against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) prayed for direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority  to provide power supply through separate service connection  together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.Ps. namely O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority in spite of observing the necessary formalities by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free access at the complainant schedule  premises.

2.                  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being an occupier  applied

before the  O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority on 20-11-2012 and duly been registered by the licensee  with EMD for Rs. 200/- for new service connection  at the   schedule premises. The  inspection was scheduled to be fixed on 29-11-2012 and could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e. CESC Authority due to objection raised by the O.P. nos. 3 to 4. Hence the case.

3.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their  written version contended interalia that at the time

of inspection the O.P. nos. 3 to 4  raised objection against the proposed new electric service connection   and   ready and willing to  effect the electric connection at his occupied  portion of the complainant if free access is available at the schedule premises.

4.                  The O.P. nos. 3 to 4 in spite of receipt of the summons did not turn up. So the

case is heard ex parte against O.P. nos. 3 & 4.

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

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

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. Since the complainant

being a lawful occupier  is suffered for want of electricity and the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are willing to effect  the new service connection, the objection raised by the O.P. nos. 3 & 4 ( co-sharer )  cannot sustain   at this critical juncture as per Electricity Act ( 36 of 2003 ), Ss 43, 176, 67 – Works of Licensee Rules ( 2006 ) which runs as under :

            “Persons in settled possession of property be it trespasser, unauthorized encroacher squatter of any premises, can apply for supply electricity without consent of co-sharer   – Is entitled to get electricity and enjoy same until he is evicted by due process of law.” [ Reference W.B.  no. 423 of 2010, dated 11-02-2011 before the Hon’ble High  Court registered AIR 2011 Cal P-64 ].

7.                  From the above we have our considered opinion that under Electricity Act,

2003, occupier has a statutory right, and licensee as distribution company has a statutory obligation to give  electric connection to occupier – Pendency of suit with the other co-sharers  with interim injunction against the petitioner, the electric connection cannot change nature and character of the property.  

            Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law as elaborated, his demand requires to be fulfilled.

            Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

            In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,     

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 51 of 2013 ( HDF 51 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte  against o.p. nos. 3 to 4 but without cost.

      The O.P. nos. 1& 2 CESC Ltd. be directed to provide new service connection after conducting site inspection with realizing MASD Bill if require within 45 days from the date of this order giving top most priority. 

      The o.p. nos. 3 to 4  are  hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the new service connection at the schedule premises as mentioned in the complaint i.e., holding no. 1150, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, P.S. Shibpur, , District – Howrah.

      If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. nos. 3 to 4  against this new service connection, the o.p. no. 1 & 2, CESC Ltd. shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Shibpur P.S. The I/C Shibpur  P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Ltd. for providing  power supply to the complainant in case of approach made by the CESC Ltd.

      No costs both compensation and litigation are awarded.

      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 )                                                                     

           Member,   

    C.D.R.F.,Howrah