SHIPRA SENGUPTA Vs. G M COMMERCIAL SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, on 3.5.1999 in the case No.97/1998, wherein the Forum below has allowed the case on contest without cost and directed the O. P. CESC to instal electric meter at the premises of the complainant within three days by taking connection from the existing service line of the premises. The complainant was directed to pay the amount of the M. A. bill and security deposit as per the I. E. Act, and within three weeks from the date of compliance with all formalities the CESC would instal separate meter in his name without asking any outstanding dues of the previous consumer.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the complainant before the Forum were that the complainant was a tenant of particular premises. He made an application to the O. P. /cesc Ltd. for installation of a new service connection for domestic purpose at his tenanted premises. The O. P. inspected the site but thereafter the CESC did not instal the separate meter. He made several correspondences with the O. P. but to no effect. Then the complainant filed the case before the Forum, seeking a direction upon the O. P/cesc to provide a separate meter in his favour without further delay.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with that order the O. P. /cesc (appellant herein) has preferred this appeal before this Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that after receiving the application for a separate meter from the respondent he was advised through a letter dated 9.1.1998 to obtain commercial clearance from the commercial section of the appellant's office. But he failed to comply with the said formalities. He did not even turn up to the appellant. As a result the respondent's application has been cancelled. It is also mentioned by the appellant that if there are outstanding dues of the premises in question, it has the right to refuse installation of a fresh connection/meter in that premises until and unless the said dues are cleared by the intending consumer. According to the appellant the order is illegal, erroneous, and unjust and is liable to be set aside.