DATE OF FILING : 05.12.2014..
DATE OF S/R : 15.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14.10.2015.
Deb Kumar Show,
son of late Gopal Kumar Shaw,
of 5, Balai Mistry Lane, P.S. Shibpur, P.O. B. Garden,
District Howrah,
PIN 711103, and
resident of 3/1/1, Balai Mistry Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
P.O. B. Garden, District Howrah,
Pin 711 103……………………………………………………………...COMPLAINANT.
1. The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ),
Howrah – 711101.
2. Sri Swarup Das,
son of late Tilak Chandra Das,
of 5, Balai Mistry Lane, P.S. Shibpur, P.O. B. Garden,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 103……………………………………........................…………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, Deb Kumart Show, against District Engineer, CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office, Howrah, and another, praying for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. to install new electric connection at holding no. 5, Balai Mistry Lane, P.S. Shibpur, P.O. B. Garden, Howrah, and also to direct the o.p. no. 2, Sri Swarup Das, not to obstruct such work of installation of new electric connection and direct Shibpur P.S., Howrah, to render appropriate assistance to the petitioner at the relevant time and to O.P. 1 pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental agony.
- The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a new connection before the o.p. no. 1 on 07.11.2014 and deposited earnest money but the o.p. no. 1 though sent a letter for carrying out inspection yet the staff members of this o.p. no. 1 could not come due to short span of time and assured that new electric connection would be installed. The petitioner visited the office of the o.p. no. 1 for several times and requested for installation but the o.p. no. 1 did not do the same and such act amounted to deficiency in service on their part and so the petitioner filed the case.
- The o.p. no. 2, Sarup Das, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against him and further submitted that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the schedule mentioned property and the o.p. no. 2 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and so this case be dismissed.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that they sent letter to the petitioner for inspection as well as carrying out the new installation work. But one Sarup Das claimed himself as a landlord of the premises and raised objection in writing and sent the same to the District Engineer, CESC Ltd. Thus the o.p. no. 1 though interested to render new connection yet could not install the new connection due to non accessibility of the meter room and so there was no deficiency on their part and the case be dismissed against them.
5. 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. ?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a legal occupier of the premises and applied for new connection before the o.p. no. 1 who did not render new connection to the petitioner on the ground that the o.p. no. 2 raised objection against the new connection. There is no reason to refuse such new connection and so the petitioner field the case. The o.p. no. 1 in para 11 of their version submitted that they are willing to effect new electric connection and new meter if free access is available. Thus, this Forum finds that the o.p. no. 1 could not render such new connection due to obstruction raised by the owner of the premises and then is no deficiency on their post.The simple objection raised by the o.p. no. 2 is that they are owner of the premises and the petitioner has no legal right to get electricity connection in their premises and the same can not be a ground for returning electricity to the petitioner.
7. Keeping in mind the submission of the ld. counsels of all sides and also provision of law in connection with the contents of the petition as well as the written version filed therein, this Forum finds that in the absence of electricity and water,life cannot be thought of in these days and thus the petitioner is entitled to such electric connection as he occupied the premises.
In view of above discussion and findings, this Forum is of the opinion that the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 628 of 2014 ( HDF 628 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but without costs.
The petitioner is entitled to get new electric connection in his occupied premises and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to render such electric connection by placing a new meter in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and in case of any obstruction, the o.p. no. 1 is to take the assistance of local p.s. and the o.p. no. 2 is directed not to cause any obstruction in rendering of such new electric connection and the o.ps. failing to comply the order of the Forum, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
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.
