DATE OF FILING : 13/05/2013 DATE OF S/R : 04/06/2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26/08/2013 1) Sri Bishandev Chowdhury, s/o Lt. Kharban Chowdhury, Aged about 41 years, residing at 200/5, ‘C’ Road, Bamungachi, Salkia, P.S. Liluah, Dist – Howrah – 711 106--------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited having its office at Vidyut Bhavan, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 091. 2) Station Manager, WBSEDC Limited, having office at Balitikuri, 33/11, KV Sub-Stn. Complex H.I.E. Dist Howrah – 711 113. 3) Sri Nihori Projapti, son of not known of 200/5, ‘C’ Road, Bamungachi, Dist Howrah – 711 106------------------------------------------------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 complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended against 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 new electric service connection through separate meter together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. no. 1 in spite of observing the necessary formalities including deposition of security deposit and service connection charges by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free /easy access to the complainant premises. 2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority in their written version admitted the facts regarding deposition of security deposit and service connection charges including execution of agreement etc. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 have given their best efforts to effect the new service connection to the complainant premises but could not be accelerated due to objection raised by the O.P. no. 3, that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority are ready and willing to effect the new service connection if free access is available at the complainant premises with the assistance of civil authority. 3. The O.P. no. 3 on the other hand through their written version stated that the case is totally false, harassing, motivated with malafide intention and entirely concocted and it nothing but a fertile abuse of the process of law chiefly to harass and lower down the prestige of the answering O.P. It is also opined by the O.P. no. 3 against denial the existence of the petitioner in his tenanted premises at 200/5, C. Road, Bamungachi, Salkia, on a consolidated amount per month and since last January, 2012 the said Bishandu Chowdhury has not paid his monthly premises rent and subsequently applied for depositing rent before the Ld. Rent Controller, Howrah, after compliance of Section 21 of the W.B.P.T. Act. The said Basudeb Chowdhury has no right to become a tenant as per act and as such this petitioner has no right to get any kind of relief including electricity at his tenanted premises so called as a tenant for which the case should be dismissed with exemplary cost. 4. 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 : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Since the complainant deposited the quotational money against the security deposit and service connection charges under the head of new service connection to the WBSEDCL Authority and the O.P. nos. 1& 2 are willing to effect the new service connection, the objection raised by O.P no. 3 cannot stand for effecting the proposed service connection in accordance of provision U/S 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or a part thereof, the petitioner has a statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give him electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation to give him electricity simply because the petitioner is a party suffering from electricity, the private parties are not entitled to say that he cannot get electricity ( referring the case study – (2010) (3) WBLR (Cal) 539 before the Hon’ble High Court). 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. 149 of 2013 ( HDF 149 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest without costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without cost against the O.P. no. 3. The O.P. no. 2, WBSEDCL Authority be directed to effect the service connection to the tenanted portion of the complainant as per schedule 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. 3 against such supply of electricity in the said schedule tenanted portion, the O.P. no. 2 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 . No costs is awarded in the nature of compensation and litigation. 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 ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( T. K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
