CESC LIMITED Vs. SOBHEJAN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed against order dated 14.7.2008 passedby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly in C.D.F. Case No.97/2007 where by the complaint was allowed on contest against all OPs and the OPs 1,2 and 3 were directed to provide electric connection to the premises of the petitioner within a month from date and if required police assistance would have to be provided by the petitioner at her cost. The petitioner was held entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000 as mental harassment. The case of the complainant as made out in the complaint is that the petitioner is the owner of the property described in the schedule to the complaint and she is in occupation thereof having right, title and interest. The petitioner approached the OP1 for taking electric connection in the said property and she deposited requisite fees and submitted requisite documents necessary for taking electric connection at her premises. OP1 with his associates inspected the premises and found that the premises was fit for supply of electricity. The connection was delayed without assigning any reason in spite of request made verbally. OP4 raised objection against such connection. After due inquiry OP1 asked the petitioner to deposit prescribed fees for giving electric connection to the said property and the petitioner paid the same duly. Though supply of electricity is essential, the connection was not being givenby the OP authorities and when the letters of the petitioner were not responded positively, the complaint was filed seeking relief of electric connection, compensation of Rs. 90,000 and cost of Rs. 10,000. In a contested proceeding when the OP CESC Authorities submitted their objection as also the OP4 filed his written objection, the matter was decided by the Forum below as aforesaid.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the Appellant contended that the OPs 1,2 and 3 couldnot give the connection as there was dispute between the complainant and the OP4 and in such circumstances no deficiency in service can be alleged against the OPs 1,2 and 3 and without there being any police help available to OPs 1, 2 and 3, the electric connection could not be made available and, therefore, compensation of Rs. 5,000 is not desirable and without any further direction in respect of police help the connection cannot be given as private dispute between the complainant and the OP4 is existing.

(3.) THE Complainant/Respondent No. 1 did not appear at the time of hearing. The Proforma Respondent being the OP4 appeared through the learned Advocate who contended that the ownership of the complainant in the property described in schedule is not disputed but as the giving of connection affects the property of the OP4, such connection should not be directed. The learned Advocate for the OP4 contended that inspite of his objection, connection has been given to the complainant and, therefore, the same should be directed to be disconnected.