DATE OF FILING : 10/03/2014
DATE OF S/R : 21/04/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08/09/2014
ARUN NANDY,
son of late Basanta Kumar Nandy,
Ichapur Sealdanga, Near Mukti Sangha,
P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Jagacha,
Howrah.---------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1) The District Engineer, CESC Ltd.
Regional Office at 433/1, G.T. Road (North),
Howrah - 711 101.
2) Tapan Nandy,
son of late Basanta Kumar Nandy,
Ichapur Sealdanga, near Mukti Sangha,
P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Jagacha,
Howrah711 104 -------------------------------------------------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 was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) against the o.p. no. 1 alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for disconnection his existing supply under Consumer no. 57090091005 and relief thereof in the nature of compensation and litigation costs.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant applied before the o.p. no. 1 for disconnection of his power supply against Consumer no. 5709009 where power supply are being fed through meters being no. 2323739 and 1096708. The power supply of the said premises could not be disconnected by the licensee due to resistance of the co-sharer i.e., o.p. no. 2 who actually consuming the energy through those meters. Hence the complaint.
3. The o.p. no. 1 on his written version contended interalia that the complainant is a bonafide consumer being Consumer no. 57090091005 applied for disconnection of power supply at his premises but could not effect the disconnection due to resistance of o.p. no. 2 who happens to be the elder brother and that to there is no deficiency in service on the part of this answering o.p. and the dispute is civil in nature.
4. The o.p. no. 2 in his written version stated that he actually consuming electrical energy through the existing meters for running his business for maintaining his livelihood and residing in the same premises where the complainant is residing there and paid electric bills time to time and the said electric connection in the name of the complainant for which he has no fault for his own to resist the so called disconnection against the licensee i.e., o.p. no. 1.
5. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly there is a connection in the name of the complainant where energy recorded in two separate meters, actually consuming his brother i.e., here in o.p. no. 2 who happens to run business for self employment. The complainant applied before the o.p. no. 1 i.e., CESC Authority for disconnection the power supply / connection in his name and the o.p. no. 1 tried to disconnect the power supply / disconnection of existing connection but failed due to resistance made by the o.p. no. 2 ( actually his elder brother who actually consuming energy ).
7. The licensee i.e. o.p. no. 1 is duty bound to disconnect the power supply against the request of the complainant through written after observing all other technical formalities, whatever the reason laid behind. In this particular juncture the o.p. no. 1 failed to disconnect power supply on some filthy ground i.e., so called resistance of o.p. no.2 who is not the actual consumer and is not tenable to the appropriate court of law.
8. Perused the argument made by the ld. Lawyer of the o.ps. namely o.p. no. 1 & 2 together with the complainant where it is our candid opinion that the o.p. no. 1 failed to discharge his duty by not taking proper action for disconnection of power supply in spite of the facts he ought to have take help from the civil authority which he did not.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 128 of 2014 ( HDF 128 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest without costs against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed without costs against o.p. no. 2.
The O.P. no. 1 CESC Authority be directed for immediate disconnection the power supply of the complainant’s premises either for meter terminal or from the service pole within 30 days from the date of this order.
The O.P. no. 2 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the disconnection of the power supply of the complainant.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including o.p. no. 2 against effecting such disconnection of service connection of the complainant at his schedule premises, the o.p. no. 1 CESC Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from the Jagacha Police Station. The officer – in-charge, Jagacha P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officer of the o.p. no. 1 CESC Authority for effecting such disconnection at the complainant’s premises in case of approach made by the o.p. no. 1 CESC Authority.
No costs and compensation is 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.
