DATE OF FILING : 05-11-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 18-12-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-04-2013.
Sri Pankaj Das ( Majhi ),
son of late Nanda Lal Das ( Majhi ),
residing at 1/1,at present 1/1/1, Krishnadhan Kar Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Sukumar Das ( Majhi ),
Sukhen Das ( Majhi),
both son of late Sudhir Kumar Das ( Majhi ),
residing at 1/1 at present 1/1/1,
Krishnadhan Kar Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711104. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President-In-Charge : 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 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.
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being a occupier applied
before the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., CESC Authority on 16-07-2012 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 25-07-2012 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.
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.
The O.P. nos. 3 to 4 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. 65 of 2010 in the Ld. 2nd Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Howrah, for eviction of licensee and as such the complainant got no right to get any electricity from the CESC Authority. 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.
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 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 ].
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. 153 of 2012 ( HDF 153 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed 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. 1/1/1, Krishnadhan Kar Lane, 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.
