Tapan Pal,

son of late Ganesh  Chandra Pal,

residing at 2/1, Akshoy  Chakraborty Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1. The District Engineer,

     CESC Ltd.,

     Having its regional office at

     433/1,  G.T. Road ( North ),

     District – Howrah,

     PIN – 711101.

2.  Subir Kumar  Das,

     son of late Padyut Kumar Das.

3.  Sri  Sujit Das.

4.  Sri  Sandip Das,

     both are sons of late Sambhu Das.

5.  Smt. Tinka Das,

     wife of Sri Buya Das.

6.  Sri Nemai  Chakraborty,

     son of late Hari Bola  Chakraborty.

7.  Smt. Buri alias Kabita  Chakraborty,

     wife of Sri Nemai  Chakraborty. ------------------------------------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 complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.Ps.  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 directives upon the O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority  for immediate installation of new meter at the complainant’s occupied portion at 2/1, Akshoy  Chakraborty Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,  and to restrain o.p. nos. 2 to 7  from raising any obstruction against such installation.

2.                  The o.p. no.1, CESC Authority stated in their written version that the

complainant paid MASD Bill and that to attempts were made for effecting new electric connection through separate  meter and  the job could not be completed for forcible and unauthorized objection raised at the site by o.p. nos. 2 to 7. They have no objection for installing the same if free access is available.

3.                  Notices were served at their new amended address as submitted by the

complainant and the same has either returned neither submitted any written version nor appeared except O.P.no. 6 has submitted his written version for which ex parte order against O.P nos. 1 to 5 and 7 has been made.

4.                   The O.P. no. 6 in their written version contended interalia that the

complainant is guilty for suppression of material facts as well as misleading the ld. Forum and such he is not entitled to any relief and the allegations made against these answering O.Ps. are false and hereby affirmatively denied by these answering O.Ps. for which the complaint made by this complainant is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. n. 6 with 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.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.         Both the points are  taken up together for active consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant complied with all necessary technical formalities together with depositing necessary quotational money  to the o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority. It appears that the o.p. no. 1 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the service 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 install the meter was due to the objection raised by the o.p. nos. 1 to 7. We have also considered the written version of o.p. no. 6 but the fact remains is that as  the present situation, the   consumer cannot be deprived from electricity, nor can be  forced to live in darkness when all the formalities including MASD Bill paid by him. The objection raised by the o.p. nos. 2 to 7  cannot be sustained at the present situation on some fictitious considering   electricity is a need based requirement of  a civilized person.

5.         Considering the above we have our considered opinion that the o.p., CESC Authority  has no latches and negligence in installing the meter in question and that they are ready to complete the job if free access at the proposed premises is available.

            Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.      

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  226 of 2013 ( HDF 226 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest without   costs  against  O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority and dismissed without cost against o.p. nos. 2 to 7.   

      The O.P. no. 1, CESC Authority  be directed to provide new electric connection through separate meter to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. nos. 2 to 7 are hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during installation  of the meter.

      In case of any illegal objection raised by any person, complainant and o.p. no. 1, CESC Authority shall approach to the local police station for help.

      No order as to compensation.   

      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.