Sri Sumanta Adak,

son of late Pankaj Kumar Adak,

residing at 104/1/2, Brindaban Mullick Lane, P.S Bantra,

District – Howrah, PIN – 711104  and

also residing at 91/1, Joynarayan Babu Ananda  Dutta Lane,

P.S. Bantra,  District – Howrah.----------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The District Engineer,

            CESC Ltd.,

            having its regional office

            at 433/1,  G.T. Road ( North ),

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711101.

2.         Sukumar Adak,

            son of late Paramananda Adak,

3.         Smt. Kajal Adak,

            wife of Sri  Sukumar Adak,

            both are residing at 91/1, Jaynarayan Babu 

            Ananda Dutta Lane, P.S. Bantra,

            District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------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.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 direction upon the O.P. no. 1 for effecting service connection to provide electric 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 scheduled premises / meter room. 

2.                  The brief facts of the case that the complainant applied for providing

electric connection ( domestic ) before the o.p. no. 1  on the dated 03-09-2013vide application no. 55343340076 with EMD of  Rs. 200/- vide M.A. Bill no. 06/21503/13 (402)  for new supply ( loop) and schedule inspection was fixed on 24-09-2013 but the same could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e., CESC Authority due to objection raised by the O.P. nos. 2 & 3. Hence the case.

3.                  The o.p. no. 1 in his written version  contended interalia that at the time of

inspection the O.P. nos. 2 & 3 raised objection against the proposed electric connection and they are ready and willing to install electric meter to effect the electric connection at the premises of the complainant if free access is available at the scheduled premises / meter room where electric connection will be effected.

4.                  The   O.P. nos. 2 & 3 vide their written version stated opined that the

instant complaint is barred by principle of estoppels waiver and acquiescence  and the complainant at this present juncture is not to be considered as consumer. For which the instant case is liable to be dismissed with costs. Moreover, that these answering O.P. no. 2 filed a suit petition before the 7^th Court of Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah, vide Title Suit No. 141 of 2013 and the Hon’ble Judge passed an injunction awarded to these answering O.P. upto till 13-01-2014 for maintaining statuesquo against this suit property which is to be considered at this instant case for passing necessary judgment if any as deem fit and proper by the Hon’ble Forum. 

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      :

6.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.      Since the complainant being a tenant is suffered for want of electricity and the o.p. no. 1 is willing to install the electric meter but the objection raised by o.p. nos. 2 & 3 cannot sustain at this critical juncture for installation of electric meter (loop) in the schedule place U/S 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

7.         Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law 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. 351 of 2013 ( HDF 351 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed against o.p. nos. 2 & 3  but without cost.

      The O.P. nos. 1 CESC Ltd. be directed to provide supply of electricity by installing separate meter (loop) after conducting site inspection with realizing MASD Bill if require within 45 days from the date of this order giving top most priority. 

      The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are  hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the service connection through installation of a separate meter (loop) at the schedule place.

      If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 against installation of meter in the said premises, the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Bantra  P.S. The I/C Bantra  P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officer 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.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.