DATE OF FILING : 29/01/2014
DATE OF S/R : 27/02/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12/09/2014
SRI ASHOK ROY @ ROUTH
S/O late. Rameswar Routh,
27, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane,
Ground Floor, P.S. Golabari
District Howrah 711 106------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1) The District Engineer, CESC Limited,
433/1, G.T. Road, (North) Howrah,
Dist - Howrah - 711 101
2) Sri Rabindranath Manna,
S/O Satyaranjan Manna,
27 Ramlal Mukherjee Lane,
P.S. Golabari
Howrah 711 106 -----------------------------------------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
1. The instant case filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as
amended against the O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) prayed for direction upon the O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority to provide power supply through separate service meter ( loop ) together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. namely O.P. no. 1 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.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being a tenant applied
before the O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority on 03-01-2014 and duly been registered with the licensee with EMD for Rs. 200/- for installation of meter ( loop ) at the schedule premises. The inspection was scheduled to be fixed on 20-01-2014 but could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e. CESC Authority due to objection raised by the O.P. no. 2. Hence the case.
3. The O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority in their written version contended
interalia that at the time of inspection the O.P. nos. 2 raised objection against the proposed new connection (loop) 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.
4. The O.P. nos. 2 vide their written version stated that the complainant has filed
this complaint on some false and fabricated ground and with intention to cheat the o.p. and practices fraud upon the o.p. no. 1 as well as upon the Hon’ble Forum is not entitled to get any relief for which the complaint as made by the complainant be rejected with exemplary costs.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. 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. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority is willing to effect the new connection through separate meter (loop), the objection raised by the O.P. no. 2 ( landlord ) 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 ].
7. From the above we have our considered opinion that under Section 43 of the
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/landlord 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. 48 of 2014 ( HDF 48 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority and dismissed against o.p. no. 2 but without cost.
The O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority be directed to provide new service connection through 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. no. 2 is 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. 27, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane,Ground Floor, P.S. Golabari, District, Howrah- 711 106.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. no. 2 against this new service connection, the O.P. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority. 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 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.
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.
