DATE OF FILING : 06.06.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 10.07.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 16.03.2016.
Smt. Piyali Patra,
wife of Sri Sanat Patra,
daughter of Sri Deb Kumar Nandi,
residing at 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, Bally, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah.……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its regional office at 433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Howrah 711101.
2. Swapan alias Swapan Kumar Das,
son of late Sachindra Chandra Das,
3. Sri Tapan Kumar Das,
4. Sri Tapas Kumar Das,
5. Sri Debasish Das,
nos. 2 & 5 are the sons of late Satindra Chandra Das,
at 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah. ……………………………………………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.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Piyali Patra, against the o.p., District Engineer, CESC Ltd., Howrah, and four others, praying for direction against the o.p. no. 1 to supply electricity by installing new electric meter and also shifting the existing meter no. 62152158005 at the newly constructed meter room of the petitioner with the help of local police and direct the o.p. nos. 1 to 5 not to obstruct the o.p. no. 1 while installing the electric connection as well as shifting the existing meter and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 80,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that her father, Deb Kumar Majumdar, was the sole owner and occupier of the property measuring two cottah by a deed of settlement dated 13.03.1983. There was a two storied building on the said property and in the ground floor there are four rooms out of which one room measuring 372 sq. ft. was sold to tenants i.e., o.p. nos. 3 to 5, Tapan Das, Tapas Das & Debasis Das, by a sale deed dated 03.05.2012 and the o.ps. 3 to 5 became joint owner with the petitioners and said 372 sq. ft. is located in the extreme northern side of the property at the ground floor. The other room is in occupation of tenant, Swapan Kr. Das, o.p. no. 2. Another room is occupied by another tenant Sankar Roy. The 4th room is under the occupation of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that at the ground floor the petitioner constructed one meter room at the middle portion of said four rooms wherein the petitioner intends to get new electric connection and also wanted to shift the existing meter. The complainant applied for domestic connection before the o.p. no. 1 who issued EMD bill of Rs. 2,000/- dated 23.4.2014 in favour of petitioner. The o.p. no. 1 inspected the holding on 25.4.2014 but due to objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 to 5 the inspection could not be carried out. The petitioner lodged a written complaint before the S.P., Howrah, against such objection of o.p. nos. 2 to 5 so that the inspection could be completed with the help of police. The o.p. no. 1 failed to supply new electric connection. The o.p. nos. 2 to 5 threatened the petitioner not to take new connection at the newly constructed room as well as shifting the existing meter into that room. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed this case.
- The CESC Ltd. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action and she is not a consumer. The o.p., CESC Ltd., received application for a new connection from the petitioner at premises no. 6, Madhab Bannerjee Lane, on 23.4.2014 but during inspection the petitioner insisted upon installing meter at the meter room which was actually situated at premises no. 6/A, Madhab Banerjee Lane. The o.p. is ready to install the meter at 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, but not at 6/A, Madhab Banerjee Lane. The further case of o.p. is that the o.p. no. 2 filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata, and the Hon’ble Court ordered supplying connection to the o.p. no. 2 but the petitioner resisted and the connection could not be given. The petitioner suppressed all the material facts. If the petitioner of the case gives access to this o.p. no. 1 to the meter board of 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, then the o.p. is always ready and willing to effect supply in the name of the petitioner and so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p.
- The o.p. no. 2, Swapan Kumar Das, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against him and submitted that he is a monthly tenant and pays monthly rent to the landlord, Deb Kumar Nandy. This o.p. no. 2 applied for new electric connection and the o.p. no. 1 could not hold inspection due to objection raised by the petitioner. The o.p. no. 2 filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass order in favour of the o.p. no. 2 and this petition be dismissed with costs.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its 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.,CESC Ltd. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case, the petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents to prove her case. She has filed a letter dated 23.4.2014 written to her by the District Engineer, CESC Ltd., Howrah, to carry out an inspection of her premises on 25.4.2014 between 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. in connection with her application for new electric connection. She also filed copy of one complaint written to Commissioner of Police, Howrah, in connection with electric dispute between her and her co-owners and tenants. She also filed onedocument that she resides at 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, Bally, Howrah. All theabove oral and documentary evidences prove the fact that the petitioner is in occupation of premises no. 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, Howrah, and U/S 42, 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 a distribution company has a statutory duty to supply electricity to the owner or occupier of a premises located in the area of distribution of the company when such owner or occupier applied for such a connection.
- Our Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Khamura vs. Nayan Mallick and others opined that the distribution company is to supply electricity to the applicant as the distribution licensee had a duty to the applicant whether he is owner or occupier. Our High Court in the case Abhimunya Majumdar, Superintendent Engineer and another categorically opined that a person who is in settled position of a property whether he is a trespasser or unauthorized encroacher, squatter of any premises yet he can apply for fresh electric connection without consent of the owner and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law.
- In the instant case the petitioner by presenting the Aadhar Card had shown that she occupies the premises as owner and the o.p. nos. 2 to 5 are co-owners and tenants and thus having no electric connection in her name she is entitled to a fresh electric connection because getting electricity is a statutory right and having such a statutory right the petitioner can apply for such connection and the distribution company has a statutory obligation to give electric connection to the occupier. Regarding the prayer of the petitioner for shifting one existing meter no. 62152158005 at the newly constructed meter room, the prayer of the petitioner is not considered by this Forum as there is no document placed before this Forum as to in whose name the meter stand and where the meter is located at present and also no bill or the yellow card is placed before this Forum to guess the fact of existence of such an electric meter. Thus, the contents of the prayer being vague is refused.
- Regarding deficiency in service this Forum finds no deficiency on the part of the CESC Ltd. because as soon as they got the application, they wrote a letter to the petitioner for holding inspection but due to objection raised both from the petitioner as well as the o.p. as noticed from the case file and also noticed from the affidavit and counter affidavit, this Forum is of opinion that as to such deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 and so compensation is awarded in this case.
In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to fresh electric connection even though the o.ps. placed before the Forum the judgment of the writ petition as well as their submission that the petitioner objects the entry of the o.p. no. 1 in the above premises.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 322 of 2014 ( HDF 322 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
The O.P. no. 1 is directed to render fresh electric connection in the premises of the petitioner at 6, Madhab Banerjee Lane, Bally, by installing a new electric meter within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. nos. 2 to 5 are directed not to raise any obstruction in the said installation of fresh connection and in the event of any obstruction from any corner, the I/C, Bally P.S., is directed to render police assistance to the o.p. no. 1 as well as the petitioner so that the new electric connection is installed.
Regarding shifting of meter, the prayer of the petitioner is refused by this Forum as no evidence in support of the same.
No order is passed as to compensation and costs as deficiency is not established.
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, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
