DATE OF FILING : 17-12-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 29-01-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17-04-2013.
Santi Das,
widow of late Hiralal Das,
of 17, Bagdipara Lane, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.
Sahadeo Das,
s/o. late Harinath Das
of 17, Bagdipara Lane, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102.--------------------------------------------------------------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 complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended 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 passing necessary directions upon the o.p. no. 1 to provide power supply together with compensation and litigation costs as the o.p. no. 1, 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 occupied premises and for further order for police help if any obstruction or disturbance is caused by the other third party.
The O.P. no. 1 CESC Authority in their written version admitted that the complainant complied with all formalities and paid EMD of Rs. 200/- but the new electric connection cannot be provided owing to the objection raised by the O.P. no. 2 so called co-sharer and a civil suit vide case no. 1760 of 2012 is pending before the Civil Cour for eviction as a bonafide occupier and final disposal of the said proceeding is still pending.
The O.P. no. 2 in their written version stated that the complainant allegedly under lawful possession over the schedule property and he has no legal right over the same and this particular complainant is none but a tresspasser at the best in respect of the suit property and as such is not a bonafide occupier in any sense of the term for which he is not entitled for getting new connection in respect of the said suit property for which this instant case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : -
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 1 ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The complainant complied
with all necessary formalities. It appears that the O.P. no. 1 being a public utility concern is eager to cater supply to the intending consumer i.e., complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and nor did they commit any unfair trade practice. Their inability to provide new electric connection was due to the objection raised by the 3rd party i.e. O.P. no. 2 the co-sharer of the said property.
Since the complainant being an occupier is suffered for want of electricity and the O.P. no. 1 is willing to provide the electric connection to the scheduled occupied portion of the complainant the objection raised by the co-sharer cannot sustain at the critical juncture as per electricity Act 36 of 2003, Section 43, 176, 67 – Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 which runs as under, -
“Persons in settled possession of property be it tracepassers, unauthorized encroachment, squatter of any premises can apply for supply of electricity without the consent of the owner- is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law” (reference WB No. 423 of 2010, date 11/02/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court, Registered under AIR 2011 Cal P-64.
From the above we have our considered opinion that under 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 private respondents with interim injunction or any other sort of order 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. 169 of 2012 ( HDF 147 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest without cost against O.P. no. 1 and dismissed against O.P. no. 2 but without cost.
The O.P. no. 1 CESC Authority be directed to provide electric connection with proper site inspection raising MASD Bill and duly complied all the formalities as necessary for this purpose should effect the new connection within 45 days from the date of this order
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the co-sharer against providing new electric connection of the said occupied premises of the complainant the O.P. no. 1 i. e.. CESC Ltd. shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from the Shibpur P.S. The I/C Shibpur P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the CESC Ltd. for providing 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.
