DATE OF FILING                    :           16-10-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :         22-11-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :           07-02-2013.

Indu Majhi,

son of late Sambhunath Majhi,

residing at 34/36, Naskarpara Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, Howrah,

PIN – 711 103.-------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

1.            The District Engineer,

                The CESC Ltd. Howrah Regional Office,

                433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,

                Howrah – 711 101.

2.            Kashinath Satik,

                son of late Jibananath Satik,

                residing at 34/36, Naskarpara Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, Howrah,

PIN – 711 103.----------------------------------------------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.Ps. i.e. CESC Authority  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   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 schedule premise / meter room. 

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being a tenant applied

before the O.P. no. 1 i.e. CESC Authority on 28-11-2011 with E.M.D. for new supply (loop) in the tone of load 3 kw. domestic and the schedule inspections were fixed on 07-12-2011 and 04-01-2012 and could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e.,  CESC Authority   due to objection raised by the o.p. no. 2. Hence the case.

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

inspection the o.p. no. 2 raised objection against the proposed electric connection (loop)  and willing to install electric meter to effect the electric connection at the premises of the complainant if free access is available at the schedule premises / meter room where electric connection will be effected.

The o.p. no. 2 on the other hand vide his written version stated that the

property in question is an ezmali one and the complainant filed in his particular petition without adding a party to other co-sharers for which the complainant who is holding the schedule premises as a tenant has no genuine demand for getting electricity at his premises for which the instant case should be dismissed at once with a heavy cost  because of the fact that the complainant is a defaulter one for payment of house rent as per record.

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.  ?

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. no. 2 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 full filled.

                                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. 144 of 2012 ( HDF 144 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed against o.p. no. 2 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. no. 2 is 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. no. 2 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 Shibpur P.S. The I/C Shibpur 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.