DATE OF FILING : 18.05.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 23.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 05.11.2015.
Smt. Sima Chakraborty,
wife of Sri Monojit Chakraborty,
residing at 13/3, Nanda Mukherjee Lane, P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,
District Howrah. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its regional office at 433/1, G.T.Road ( N ),
Howrah 711101.
2.Malay Chakraborty,
son of late ManoranjanChakraborty,
3.Siprarani Chakraborty,
wife of late Monoronjan Chakraborty,
both are residing at 13/3, Nanda Mukherjee Lane,
P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,
District Howrah. ……………………………………………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 Smt. Sima Chakraborty against o.p. no. 1, District Engineer, and two others, praying for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to supply electric connection to the petitioner by installing a new electric meter in the space possessed by the petitioner with the assistance of local police and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that her father in law, Monoranjan Chakraborty, was the owner and occupier in respect of one storied pucca building situated at 13/3, Nanda Mukherjee Lane, P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra, Howrah. The above address being the matrimonial house of the petitioner, she resides there with his son at one room along with common bath and privy. Her husband residing elsewhere with his newly married wife deserting his first wife namely the petitioner. In view of above, the father in law of the petitioner declined that the petitioner and her son would possess the property through out their life. The petitioner has no electric connection in her name and the o.p. no. 2 got the same and did not allow her to enjoy electric. In view of above the petitioner prayed for a fresh connection but the o.p. no. 1 did not pay any heed to her and finding no other alternative she filed the case.
3. The o.p. no. 1, District Engineer, CESC Ltd., contested the case by filing a written version denying the material allegations made in the petition and submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The inspection was held on 01.07.2013 and 25.07.2013 and due intimation was sent to the application. That the meter board was not accessible and there was objection from the existing consumer and so there was no negligence on the part of the o.p. no. 1 and no compensation be granted as there was no latches on their part.
4. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 being the private parties though appeared in the case yet did not contest the case and so the case is heard ex parte 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. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case the petitioner,SimaChakraborty, filed affidavit in chief along with documents showing that she possesses the property being her matrimonial home. Further she submitted documents in the form of a letter ofDistrict Engineer, CESC Ltd., addressing Sima Chakraborty which proved the fact that she possessed the schedule mentioned suit property and a voter’sidentity card and otherdocuments which proved the fact that she possessed the mentioned property and prayed for injunction and wherein they prayed for electric connection.
7.This Forum heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as considered the documents filed by the petitioner and found that in the instant case the inspection was held on 01.05.2013 and 25.07.2013. Malay Chakraborty andSipraRaniChakraborty also being the resident of the same premises did not object the case by filing written version. The letter of the District engineer, CESC Ltd., dated 19.06.2013 proved that the petitioner possessed the property. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 on the other hand though appeared in the case did not raise any objection and contest the case and thus they conceded that the petitioner is a consumer of the schedule mentioned property. Rather they accepted that the petitioner occupying the property. It is the established principle of law that man cannot be deprived of water and electricity which are the primary need of a common man in modern times. The o.p. no. 1 told that they are existing consumers who objected and so they are unable to provide connection but the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 though appearing in the case and not contesting the case and same proved the fact that they do not want to object such installation of new meter and giving new connection to the petitioner.
In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner proved her case and is entitled to get the connection.
Court fee paid is correct.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 191 of 2015 ( HDF 191 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1, District Engineer, CESC Ltd., without costs and dismissed ex parte against the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 without costs.
The petitioner is entitled to get installation of new meter in her possessed space and new electric connection to her premises by the o.p. no. 1 who is directed to render such electric connection to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and in case of any objection the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd., as well as the petitioner would take police help from the local police authority. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are directed not to raise any objection in such rendering of electric connection.
As this Forum finds no latches on the part of the o.ps., so no order is passed for compensation.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
