DATE OF FILING : 11-03-2014
DATE OF S/R : 25-04-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19-11-2014.
Priyanka Das,
daughter of Sri Nilu Das,
residing at 6/4/5/2, Olabibitala Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah. …............................................................... COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
of 433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
2. The General Manager,
CESC House, 1, Chowrangee Square,
Kolkata – 1.
3. Sri Pulin Behari Maity,
son of late Gopinath Maity,
residing at 6/4/5/2, Olabibitala Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah…....................................................................................... 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 was filed by complainantU/S 12 of theC.P.Act, 1986, as amended against the O.P. CESC Authority, alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the the O.P. CESC Authority, to provide new electric connection at his occupied portion es at 6/4/5/2, Olabibitola Lane, Shibpur, Howrah, together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. 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 premise.
- The o.p. nos.1 &2 , CESC Authority stated in their written version thatthe complainant paid MASD Bill and that to attempts were made for effecting new electric connection through meter at the consumer occupied premises and the job could not be completed for forcible and unauthorized objection raised at the site by o.p. nos. 3 to 5 . They have no objection for installing the same if free access is available.
- The o.p. nos. 3 to 5 vide their written version stated the complainant is not at all a consumer and she has no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. On the other hand these o.ps. have legal title and interest over the schedule property as a lawful owner thereof for which it is opined that there is no merit in the instant case and the entire statements made thereon by the complainant are totally false, based on misconception of law and facts and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.CESC Authority ?
- Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant complied with all necessary formalities together with deposition of necessary quotational money to the o.ps. i.e., CESC Authroity at the schedule premises on demand. It appears that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 being public utility concern is eager to effect the connection to the intending consumers i.e., complainant at his schedule premises. Moreover, the ld. advocate for the o.p. nos. 3 to 5 during argument on the dated 31-10-2014 stated that an amicable settlement with the complainant and at this present moment they have no intention to restrain the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to effect the connection. As the o.ps. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority have no latches on their part for effecting the connection we have our candid opinion that the o.ps. have no deficiency in service on their part and not did they commit any unfair trade practice as the o.p. nos. 3 to 5 has already agreed amicably settle the issue. It is for the o.ps.1 & 2 CESC Authority have no binding to effect the connection because of the fact the complainant has already paid MASD Bill including observing all other technical formalities. Therefore, we have our considered opinion that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 CESC Authority have no binding to complete the job as stated.
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. 134 of 2014 ( HDF 134 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. CESC Authority without costs and dismissed against the rest.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, be directed to new electric connection through separate meter to the complainant schedule premises where quotational amount was deposited in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. nos. 3 to 5 , against effecting the service connection the O.P. CESC Authority, shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Shibpur P.S. The O/C Shibpur P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officer of the O.P. CESC Authority , for providing connection at the meter room position to effect the connection in case of approach made by the O.P. CESC Authority.
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.
