DATE OF FILING : 28-12-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 24-01-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 10-04-2013.
Rambrich Singh,
son of late Kailash Singh,
residing at 22, Bijay Kumar Mukherejee Road,
P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The CESC Ltd.,
having its registered office
at CESC House,
Kolkata – 700072.
The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its regional office at
433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah.
Smt. Mina Debi,
wife of Shew Singh.
Smt. Renu Debi,
wife of Suroj Kumar Chowrashia,
Sri Purushottam Chowrashia,
son of late Ganga Prasad Chowrashia,
residing at 22, Bijay Kumar Mukherjee Road,
P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.-----------------------------------------------------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
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 ( loop 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 tenanted premises / meter room .
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being a tenant applied before
the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority on 08-06-2012 and duly been registered by the licensee vide reference no. 06/12806/12 (707) dated 16-06-2012 with EMD for Rs. 200/- for new supply (loop) in the tone of load 0.4 kw. domestic one, the schedule inspection
fixed on 23-06-2012 and could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e. CESC Authority due to objection raised by the O.P. nos. 3 to 5. Hence the case.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version contended interalia that at the time
of inspection the O.P. nos. 3 to 5 raised objection against the proposed electric connection ( loop ) and are ready and willing to install the electric meter to effect the electric connection at his tenanted portion of the complainant if free access is available at the schedule premises / meter room where electric connection will be effected.
The O.P. nos. 3 to 5 on the other hand vide their written version stated that the
instant O.Ps. filed a suit for eviction against the complainant being T.S. No. 279 of 2010 in the 4th Court of Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah, and one statusquo order passed by the said ld. Court against the complainant for which question of electric connection through separate meter in the complainant’s occupied portion as a tenant does not arise at all and the complaint as made by the complainant is vogue, baseless and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for against which the case may be dismissed with cost because of the fact that the complainant is a defaulter one for non- payment of house rent as per record.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Since the complainant
being a tenant is suffered for want of electricity and the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are willing to install the electric meter (loop), the objection raised by the O.P. nos. 3 & 5 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 if electricity without consent of owner – 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 ].
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 private respondents 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. 182 of 2012 ( HDF 182 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against o.p. nos. 3 to 5 but without cost.
The O.P. nos. 1& 2 CESC Ltd. be directed to provide supply of electricity by installing separate meter (loop) 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 5 are hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the service connection through installation of a separate meter (loop) at the schedule place.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. nos. 3 to 5 against installation of meter in the said premises, the o.p. no. 1 & 2, CESC Ltd. shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Golabari P.S. The I/C Golabari P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Ltd. for providing 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.
