DATE OF FILING : 01-02-2013. DATE OF S/R : 01-03-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 05-07-2013. M/S. Arco, proprietor Rabin Mukherjee, son of late Manik Mukherjee of 85/1, Rabindra Sarani, P.O. Bhattanagar, P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah, PIN – 711203.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Station Manager, Bhattanagar, Custmer Care Centre, Electric Supply Office, WBSEDCL Authority, 1A, Station Road, Liluah, P.O. Bhattanagar, P.S. Liluah, D District – Howrah. 2. The Divisional Engineer Howrah Division, WBSEDCL, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. Howrah, District – Howrah, PIN – 71101. 3. The Chairman, WBSEDCL Authority, Bidyut Bhavan, Karunamoyee, Bidhan Nagar ( Salt Lake City ), Kolkata – 700091. 4. Sri Sudeb Mukherjee, Son of late Kartick Chandra Mukherjee, 85/1, Rabindra Sarani, P.O. Bhattanagar, P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah, PIN – 711203.------------------------------------------------------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 filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986 prayed for direction upon the O.P. i.e., WBSEDCL Authority for effecting the new electric service connection at his schedule premises together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. in spite of observing the necessary formalities including deposition of service connection charges and security deposition by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free / easy access to the complainant premises. 2. The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority is contesting the case contending interalia that the case is not maintainable as well as in facts. The allegation as made in the petition is false, frivolous and motivated with an intention to harass the O.P. The O.P. admitted that the fact regarding deposition of necessary quotation money against service and security deposit money the O.P. is ready and willing to effect the service connection if free access is available at the complainant premises with the assistance of civil authority. 3. The O.P. no. 4 on the other hand filed his written version that the instant O.P. filed a suit against the complainant being T.S. 12 of 2013 before the ld. 6th Civil Judge, Jr. division, Howrah, which is pending and as such the complainant got no right to get electricity from the WBSEDCL Authority and the complaint as made by the complainant is bogus, baseless and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for against which the case may be dismissed with costs. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority for effecting new service connection in due time ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken together for consideration. Since the complainant deposited the quotational money under the head of new service connection and security deposit money to the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority and the authority has the statutory obligation for effecting the service connection in accordance with provision 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or a part thereof, the complainant has the statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give him electricity, once the requisite application is filed, the company incurred a statutory obligation to give him electricity in due time simply because the petitioner is a party suffering from electricity. Pendency of suit with the other co-sharers with interim injunction against the petitioner electric connection cannot change the nature and character of the property. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and In view of the present position of law as elaborated, his demand requires to be fulfilled. 7. As it is already proved that the O.P. has deficiency in service , therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. 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. 26 of 2013 ( HDF 26 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps. The O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority is hereby directed to effect the new service connection at the complainant schedule premises within 30 days from the date of this order giving top most priority. If there be any resistance by anyone including the O.P. no. 4 against such supply of electricity in the said schedule premises, the O.P. no. 1 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Liluah P.S. The I/C, Liluah P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the WBSEDCL Authority for providing such supply to the complainant premises in case of approach made by WBSEDCL Authority. The complainants are 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 ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
