DATE OF FILING : 26.09.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 20.11.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.05.2015.
Sri Kartick Manna,
son of late Shambhu Manna,
residing at 16/2 & 16/2/1, Gopal Ghosh Lane,
P.S. Malipanchghora,
District Howrah.……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The DistrictEngineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its regional office at 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),
District Howrah,
PIN 711101.
- Smt. Asha LataGhosh,
wife of late Rabindranath Ghosh,
residing at 16/2, Gopal Ghosh Lane, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District Howrah,
PIN 711106.
- Smt. Asti RaniRoy,
wife of Sri Mohon Roy,
residing at 16/2/1, Gopal Ghosh Lane, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District Howrah,
PIN 711106. ………………………………………………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 Subrata Sarker.
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, Kartick Manna, residing at 16/2 & 16/2/1, Gopal Ghosh Lane, P.S. Malipanchghora, District Howrah, praying for a direction on the o.p. no. 1, District Engineer, CESC Ltd., Regional Office, at 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), to supply new electric connection by installing electric meter in the premises and directing the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 namely, Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh and Smt. Asti Rani Roy of the same premises not to create obstruction in such installation of electricity and also pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written version wherein the CESC Ltd. stated that they have no allegations against the petitioner and categorically submitted that they are always ready and willing to give new electric connection to the petitioner but the said connection could not be given due to obstruction as well as non cooperation by other o.ps. and also the petitioner to arrange for their entry to the meter board.
- The o.p. no. 3 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against the them and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to new electric connection in the holding 16/2/1, wherein the o.p. no. 3 is the owner and so prayed for dismissal of the petition.
- In spite of due service of summon on o.p. no. 2, Asha LataGhosh, she did not appear and contest the case and thus the case is heard ex parte against her.
5. Upon pleadings of parties four points arose for determination :
Whether the case is maintainable ?
Whether the case is barred by limitation ?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no. 1 ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
6. Decision with Reasons :
All the above issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity
of discussion and to skip of reiteration. In respect of the maintainability of the petition, this Forum on scrutiny of records finds that the case is well maintainable as the petitioner is a consumer and the o.p. no. 1 is service provider and main relief is against the o.p. no. 1 and also the case is not barred by limitation because the petitioner filed this case on 26.9.2014 and the cause of action arose in 2014 itself. As regards deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for this Forum finds that the petitioner is a resident of 16/2 and 16/2/1 as a tenant as the documents being the rent receipts are filed and he also enjoyed electricity in the rented premises but prayed for new electric connection which cannot be denied by the service provider i.e., o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. on grounds like entry into the meter room not available or obstruction by some person etc. In the instant case, the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to install new electric connection in his rented premises and also direction on the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 not to obstruct such installation of electricity in the premises by o.p. no. 1 during installation and also prayed for compensation for physical and mental harassment and litigation costs. In these modern days particularly in the city life life cannot be thought of without water and electricity and our Apex Court for a number of times opined that none should be deprived of water and electricity and what to speak of this legal tenant. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to supply of new electric connection by installing a new electric meter by the o.p. no. 1 and the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 being owners of the house also should not obstruct such installation of electricity. In this case, the prayer of the petitioner for compensation cannot be granted because the o.p. no. 1 was always ready and willing to supply electricity to the petitioner and due to some extrinsic reason, the same could not be supplied.
- In view of above discussion and finding it is concluded that the petitioner has succeeded in substantiating his claim to get electricity as prayed for. In the result, claim succeeds.
- Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 531 of 2014 ( HDF 531 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 and 3 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2 but without costs considering the special circumstances of the case.
The petitioner is entitled to supply of new electricity service connection in his occupied rented premises as prayed for and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to install the new electric connection in the said tenanted premises of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are directed not to obstruct such installation.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
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.
