Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CESC Limited

  1. #1
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,711

    Default CESC Limited

    : O R D E R :


    MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

    The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement dt. 1.10.08 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 187 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint with a direction for restoration of electric line to the petitioner subject to payment of 50% of the disputed amount along with a direction for sending the meter in question to the Head of the Department of Metrological Section at Jadavpur University for testing of the meter and report to the CESC Ltd. with an intimation to the petitioner.

    The case of the complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant was a bonafide consumer under CESC Ltd., i.e the Appellant. The complainant paid electric consumption bill up-to-date and there were no dues to the electric company from the complainant. The OP illegally disconnected the electric line without serving any notice on the allegation that the complainant had committed theft in respect of consumption of electrical energy. The complainant seriously challenged the high-handed action on the part of the Ops, but without any avail. Hence, the petition of complaint was filed before the Forum below.

    The Ops contested the petition of complaint by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint with a prayer to dismiss the petition of complaint.

    The Ld. Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint observed that there is no authentic document showing bonafide assessment of consumption of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant produced all the relevant and connected documents showing payment of electricity consumption bills regularly and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in the manner as already mentioned above.

    The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
    DECISION WITH REASONS

    At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants/CESC Ltd. that once the Appellant was able to substantiate the case of theft of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant together with lodging of FIR and institution of a specific case by the police authority against the complainant, there was no scope on the part of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the petition of complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant and disposed of the same with a direction to pay 50% of the disputed amount together with sending the meter in question to the Metrological Department of Jadavpur University for testing and report. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the Electricity Act does not provide any relief under the Consumer Protection Act when there is a specific allegation of theft of electrical energy by a consumer. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs and the legal position involved in the present dispute and as such, has arrived at an unjust and improper decision which is liable to be set aside.

    We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has put up a story to the effect that the complainant being a bonafide consumer was unnecessarily harassed by the Appellants/Electric Company by disconnecting the electric line without notice and that too with a wild allegation of theft of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant. The Appellants/Ops, on the other hand, contested the suit thereby denying all the material allegations put forward by the complainant with a prayer for dismissal of petition of complaint. Now, from the materials on record we find that the complainant/Respondent did produce all the relevant and connected papers in support of Respondent’s claim that he is a bonafide consumer under the Appellants/Electric Company. On the other hand, from the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has observed that the Appellants could not produce any authentic document in support of assessment of consumption of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant which, according to the Appellants, was the result of theft of electrical energy. We have duly gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the cases of respective parties and has arrived at a just and proper decision. When admittedly the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and there is no denial that the complainant is a Consumer under the Appellant Company, we think that even though there exist some controversies between the parties it was just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to order for restoration of electric line upon the Respondent’s paying 50% of the disputed amount along with a direction of sending the meter in question to the University in question for testing and report. Considering the matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Appeal as the impugned order has kept the real controversy open and the Appellant will be at liberty to adjudge the matter upon receipt of the report from the concerned university. In the result, the Appeal fails.

    Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands affirmed.

  2. #2
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default C.e.s.c.

    Sri Chunilal Seal,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023. ---------- Complainant



    ---Verses---



    1) District Engineer, South West Dist., CESC Ltd.,

    P-18, Taratalla Road, Kol-88.



    2) Sri Kapilmuni Gupta,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023.



    3) Sri Paresh Nath Gupta,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023. --------- Opposite Party





    Complainant Sri Chunilal Seal, by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 on 11.11.08 has prayed for issuing direction upon o.p. no.1 to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant at the premises no.14, Karl Marx Sarani, P.S. Watgunj, Kolkata-23 or in the common meter room of the premises and issuing further direction upon o.p. no.2 for arranging space for installation of a new meter in the name of the complainant at the demarcated portion of the o.p. no.2 as the space is not available within the demarcated portion of the o.p. no.2. The new meter may be installed in the tenanted portion of the complainant and issuing further direction upon o.p. nos.2 and 3 restraining them from raising any objection in the name of the complainant by o.p. no.1 and any other relief or reliefs as the complainant is entitled to.

    Specific case of the complainant is that at a monthly rental of Rs.600/- he is a tenant in respect of the shop room under o.p. no.2 on the south eastern portion or front portion of the premises no.14, Karl Marx Sarani, P.S. Watgunj, Kolkata-23. He runs a garment business in the said shop room for his livelihood by means of self employment. Landlord o.p. no.2 initially gave permission for installation of a separate meter in the name of complain ant on the western portion of the said premises where all meters are maintained and accordingly the complainant applied for a separate meter on depositing fees to the extent of Rs.1140/- out of Rs.840/- for security deposit and Rs.300/- for service charge on 26.2.08.


    But the complainant was denied by a lady officer of CESC representing o.p. no.1 to get a new meter in his name because huge amount is due payable to CESC Ltd. in respect of the said premises and complainant was directed to clear at least one unpaid bill. Under compelling circumstances, complainant was forced to deposit Rs.5090/- against an unpaid bill vide annex-C. On 3.3.01 CESC personnel visited the said premises for inspection and it is found that all the meters of the premises are lying on the west portion of the premises in the meter room. Unfortunately on 6.3.08 the CESC by a letter expressed their inability to install a new meter in the name of the complainant as objection was given by o.p. no.3. O.p. no.2 also raised objection and o.p. no.3 in collusion with o.p. no.2 filed T.S. No.1817 of 2008 before the 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, against the complainant and they also prayed for injunction against the complainant.

    It has further been contended that the complainant is a young man and the garment shop is the only source of his livelihood. And for want of a separate meter he has been sustaining great loss and accordingly, finding no other alternative he has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    O.p. no.1 in their w/v filed on 11.6.09 has challenged the maintainability of this case and they also alleged that it is the dispute between the complainant and o.p. nos.2 and 3. And it has been found on scrutiny of their official record that the meter could not be installed in the name of the petitioner, Chunilal Seal, as objection was raised by o.p. no.3.

    O.p. no.3 Paresh Nath Gupta also filed his w/v on 11.6.09 wherein he has admitted that the complainant is a tenant in the said premises and he has also stated about the T.S. No.64 of 2003 and T.S. No.26 of 2003 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the complainant and o.p. no.3. He has also annexed a letter, annex-A, of his w/v, written by Kapilmuni Gupta, o.p. no.2 addressed to him.

    Decision with reasons :

    Admittedly, complainant Chunilal Seal is a tenant in the premises in question under o.p. no.2, Kapilmuni Gupta. Further admitted position is that the complainant applied for a separate metre to the CESC, o.p. no.1 by depositing Rs.1140/- and that the CESC personnel inspected the premises in question. It is the specific case of the CESC, o.p. no.1, that only due to the dispute between o.p. nos.2 and 3, they are unable to install separate meter in the name of the complainant, Chunilal Seal. It further appears from annex-A of w/v of o.p. no.3 wherein it has been clearly stated which runs as “the consent has been given to Chunilal Seal for installing electric meter in any portion”. Admittedly and evidently, therefore, a separate meter can be installed by o.p. no.1 in the name of the petitioner on a portion of the premises free from all disputes, controversies and illegalities.

    It has been keenly submitted by the ld. Lawyer for the complainant that a sympathetic consideration should be taken as because he is earning his livelihood only on the basis of this garment shop. And his earning from the garment shop is expected to be higher during the ensuing Durga Puja festival. And if he does not have a meter of his own, his earning may suffer a lot. We find merit in the submission of the ld. Lawyer of the complainant. Having due regard to the circumstances and more particularly, when o.p. no.2 the landlord has given consent for installation of an electric meter in the name of the complainant in his portion as reflected in annex-A of the w/v of o.p. no.3, in that event, we are of the opinion that the petition of complaint should be allowed.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest. The o.p. no.1 is directed to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant Sri Chunilal Seal, provisionally within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order either in the demarcated portion of o.p. no.2 or in the common place where other meters are installed.

    This order does not stand in the proceedings of T.S. No.1817 of 2008. Fees paid are correct. Accordingly, the case is finally disposed of from this forum.



    Copy of this order be supplied to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

  3. #3
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Cesc

    Sri Chunilal Seal,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023. ---------- Complainant



    ---Verses---



    1) District Engineer, South West Dist., CESC Ltd.,

    P-18, Taratalla Road, Kol-88.



    2) Sri Kapilmuni Gupta,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023.



    3) Sri Paresh Nath Gupta,

    14, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023. --------- Opposite Party





    Complainant Sri Chunilal Seal, by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 on 11.11.08 has prayed for issuing direction upon o.p. no.1 to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant at the premises no.14, Karl Marx Sarani, P.S. Watgunj, Kolkata-23 or in the common meter room of the premises and issuing further direction upon o.p. no.2 for arranging space for installation of a new meter in the name of the complainant at the demarcated portion of the o.p. no.2 as the space is not available within the demarcated portion of the o.p. no.2. The new meter may be installed in the tenanted portion of the complainant and issuing further direction upon o.p. nos.2 and 3 restraining them from raising any objection in the name of the complainant by o.p. no.1 and any other relief or reliefs as the complainant is entitled to.

    Specific case of the complainant is that at a monthly rental of Rs.600/- he is a tenant in respect of the shop room under o.p. no.2 on the south eastern portion or front portion of the premises no.14, Karl Marx Sarani, P.S. Watgunj, Kolkata-23. He runs a garment business in the said shop room for his livelihood by means of self employment. Landlord o.p. no.2 initially gave permission for installation of a separate meter in the name of complain ant on the western portion of the said premises where all meters are maintained and accordingly the complainant applied for a separate meter on depositing fees to the extent of Rs.1140/- out of Rs.840/- for security deposit and Rs.300/- for service charge on 26.2.08. But the complainant was denied by a lady officer of CESC representing o.p. no.1 to get a new meter in his name because huge amount is due payable to CESC Ltd. in respect of the said premises and complainant was directed to clear at least one unpaid bill.


    Under compelling circumstances, complainant was forced to deposit Rs.5090/- against an unpaid bill vide annex-C. On 3.3.01 CESC personnel visited the said premises for inspection and it is found that all the meters of the premises are lying on the west portion of the premises in the meter room. Unfortunately on 6.3.08 the CESC by a letter expressed their inability to install a new meter in the name of the complainant as objection was given by o.p. no.3. O.p. no.2 also raised objection and o.p. no.3 in collusion with o.p. no.2 filed T.S. No.1817 of 2008 before the 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, against the complainant and they also prayed for injunction against the complainant.

    It has further been contended that the complainant is a young man and the garment shop is the only source of his livelihood. And for want of a separate meter he has been sustaining great loss and accordingly, finding no other alternative he has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    O.p. no.1 in their w/v filed on 11.6.09 has challenged the maintainability of this case and they also alleged that it is the dispute between the complainant and o.p. nos.2 and 3. And it has been found on scrutiny of their official record that the meter could not be installed in the name of the petitioner, Chunilal Seal, as objection was raised by o.p. no.3.

    O.p. no.3 Paresh Nath Gupta also filed his w/v on 11.6.09 wherein he has admitted that the complainant is a tenant in the said premises and he has also stated about the T.S. No.64 of 2003 and T.S. No.26 of 2003 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the complainant and o.p. no.3. He has also annexed a letter, annex-A, of his w/v, written by Kapilmuni Gupta, o.p. no.2 addressed to him.

    Decision with reasons :

    Admittedly, complainant Chunilal Seal is a tenant in the premises in question under o.p. no.2, Kapilmuni Gupta. Further admitted position is that the complainant applied for a separate metre to the CESC, o.p. no.1 by depositing Rs.1140/- and that the CESC personnel inspected the premises in question. It is the specific case of the CESC, o.p. no.1, that only due to the dispute between o.p. nos.2 and 3, they are unable to install separate meter in the name of the complainant, Chunilal Seal. It further appears from annex-A of w/v of o.p. no.3 wherein it has been clearly stated which runs as “the consent has been given to Chunilal Seal for installing electric meter in any portion”. Admittedly and evidently, therefore, a separate meter can be installed by o.p. no.1 in the name of the petitioner on a portion of the premises free from all disputes, controversies and illegalities.

    It has been keenly submitted by the ld. Lawyer for the complainant that a sympathetic consideration should be taken as because he is earning his livelihood only on the basis of this garment shop. And his earning from the garment shop is expected to be higher during the ensuing Durga Puja festival. And if he does not have a meter of his own, his earning may suffer a lot. We find merit in the submission of the ld. Lawyer of the complainant. Having due regard to the circumstances and more particularly, when o.p. no.2 the landlord has given consent for installation of an electric meter in the name of the complainant in his portion as reflected in annex-A of the w/v of o.p. no.3, in that event, we are of the opinion that the petition of complaint should be allowed.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest. The o.p. no.1 is directed to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant Sri Chunilal Seal, provisionally within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order either in the demarcated portion of o.p. no.2 or in the common place where other meters are installed.

    This order does not stand in the proceedings of T.S. No.1817 of 2008. Fees paid are correct. Accordingly, the case is finally disposed of from this forum.

  4. #4
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default CESC Ltd.

    S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/176



    DATE OF FILING : 14.05.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 13.11.2009


    APPELLANT



    Anil Kumar Kandoi

    Prop. Wood Craft India

    6B, Dutta Para Lane

    Kolkata-700 006.



    RESPONDENTS



    1. M/s. CESC Ltd.

    CESC House, Kolkata-700 001.

    2. District Engineer

    North Regional Office, CESC Ltd.

    226 A&B, A.P.C.Road, Kolkata-700 004.

    3. Shyam Sundar Kandoi

    6-B, Dutta Para Lane

    Kolkata-700 006.



    BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

    MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



    FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. D.Halder, Ld. Advocate

    FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. D.B.Choudhury, Ld. Advocate (Res.1&2)

    Mr. A.Chandra, Ld. Advocate (Res. 3)





    : O R D E R :


    MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

    This Appeal arises out of judgement and order dt. 27.8.08 in DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II in C.C. Case No. 682 of 2008 where the complainant Mr. Anil Kumar Kandoi’s case related to a new power connection at his premises and alleged deficiency on part of the Ops namely CESC Ltd. & others.

    The complainant in his complaint stated that subsequent to an application being made on 9.6.08 the OP Nos. 1 & 2 namely CESC Ltd., had issued a letter proposing inspection on 16.6.08, which, however, could not be carried out due to an objection raised by the landlord namely the OP No. 3, Mr. Shyam Sundar Kandoi. Stating that supply of electricity being an essential service and the Ops having not accorded such connection the complainant inter alia prayed for immediate power connection and for payment of compensation as well.

    The Op Nos. 1 & 2 namely M/s. CESC Ltd. entered appearance and filed written version stating inter alia that the complaint was bad both in fact and law and the matter complained of being of commercial in nature and the petitioner not having pleaded his case under exclusion clause, the complaint was not maintainable and hence, should be dismissed. The OP No. 3 also supported such stand stating further that the complainant is an occupier without appropriate tenancy terms and the complaint, not being maintainable, should be dismissed.

    The Ld. District Forum after hearing both sides passed its judgement and order as under :-

    “That the complaint is dismissed on contest.”



    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order the complainant in the Forum and Appellant here filed this Appeal contending that firstly, the Ld. Forum below fell into an error in determining that the application for power connection was for commercial purpose, which was not a fact because the complainant specifically stated that the supply was sought for ‘domestic purpose’, vide Paragraph-14 of the complaint and the use of the word ‘commercial’ was made elsewhere meaning and implying that the service provider is a commercial body when meters obviously cannot be commercial. Stating that the complainant was suffering grave loss/inconvenience for want of electricity the Appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order and prayed for urgent electric connection with other remedies.

    The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, OP Nos. 1 & 2 in the Forum below, namely M/s. CESC Ltd. supported the judgement of the Ld. Forum below and contended that the complainant having specifically prayed for commercial connection the Appeal was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent No. 3 namely Mr. Shyam Sundar Kandoi reiterated the fact of the case stating that the Appellant/Complainant was not entitled to get electricity on the sole ground that he was not a tenant as his tenancy no longer continued and a legal proceeding is on for his eviction in the competent court of law. Stating that while an easement suit is pending, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal and, therefore, the Appeal was liable to be dismissed.


    DISCUSSION

    A. The Appellant/Complainant in his complaint mentioned of his application for new domestic connection being denied by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 namely CESC Ltd. on the ground of objection raised by the landlord namely Respondent No. 3, Mr. Shyam Sundar Kandoi. Admittedly, the Appellant used the words “for commercial purpose” in the prayer part of the complaint though in substance and fact the application for power connection was for domestic supply at his supposedly tenanted part of the premises under his continued occupation. Admittedly again, a dispute is on with the landlord in regard to the terms of the said tenancy and an eviction suit pending in Civil Court is yet to be decided with no specific orders of injunction. On critical appraisal of records we find no reason for denial of domestic electric connection to the Appellant in the part of the premises under occupation by him subject, of course, to right of passage and technical feasibility/safety requirements. The use of the word “for commercial purpose” as in the complaint, is deemed to be a loose use of the term not specifically intended to attract debarring provisions of law as provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended, which is essentially a benevolent act for help and guidance of consumers at large. It is also pertinent to note that there was no evidence as such on this aspect determining that the Appellant applied for the power connection for commercial use of electricity and not for looking after his and his family’s survival or for earning profit on a commercial scale. In such view, the impugned judgement of the Ld. Forum below is liable to be set aside.

    B. Referring to Respondent No. 3’s stand that the Appellant had no locus standi to apply for power connection on the face of his not being a proper tenant and more so, in the context of an eviction suit being under process against him, we do not hold the same as a tenable position in the context of law as provided under Electricity Act 2003, as amended in 2007, and citations in (i) II (2009) CPJ 427 – Santi Lata Mondal & Another Vs. Pradip Kanti Mondal & Others , (ii) M.A.T. No. 392 of 2007 – Amarendra Singh Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Others and (iii) 2000 WBLR (Cal) 533 – Manju Mukul Guha Vs. Pradip Kumar Mullick & Others.

    C. However, the Appellant/Complainant’s prayer for supply of power through the existing meter board is deemed untenable as under applicable laws and rules the right of passage towards power connection and fixation of instruments/appurtenance thereto is to be provided by the applicant of power in his part of occupied premises only subject to technicality/safety issues and, therefore, there could not be any direction for fixation of such on somebody else’s portion of the property. In above view, the Appeal is liable to be allowed in part on contest without cost.


    O R D E R

    The Appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost. The impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is set aside. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to act on the application for new domestic power connection of the Appellant and subject to technicalities, provide the same on deposit of usual fees and charges towards service connection and metering arrangements being exclusively located within the occupied portion of the Appellant and at no place elsewhere.

  5. #5
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default CESC Limited

    S.C. CASE NO. : FA/283/2009



    DATE OF FILING : 30.07.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 11.11.2009


    APPELLANTS



    1. CESC Limited, CESC House,

    Chowringhee Road

    Koklkata-700 069.

    2. District Engineer

    Calcutta Central District

    15/1, Chowringhee Square

    Kolkata-700 069.



    RESPONDENTS



    Mr. Dilip Kumar Pal

    47/A, Jakeria Street, 2nd Floor

    Kolkata-700 075.



    BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

    MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



    FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate

    FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: None





    : O R D E R :


    MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

    The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 22.6.09 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 961 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum directed the Ops to provide electric connection to the complainant through a commercial meter within one month from receipt of certified copy of the order and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- which may be adjusted with the future bills of the complainant.

    The complainant/Respondent’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant applied for commercial electric meter and connection on 26.8.08. The OP after receipt of the application informed the complainant that there was an outstanding of Rs. 5628/- and as there was no alternative left before the complainant the complainant had to deposit the said outstanding amount. But inspite of that the OP never installed the new meter or gave electric connection to the complainant and hence, the petition of complaint was filed by the complainant for proper redressal.

    The Ops contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of petition of complaint contending inter alia that there was no available space for taking electric line to the premises in question and as the complainant did not cooperate with the Ops in this regard the connection could not be afforded to the complainant and hence, there was no negligence or laches or deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops and accordingly, the Ops prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

    The Ld. Forum below while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant having applied for installation of meter and electric connection and he having paid the outstanding amount as claimed by the Ops, it was not justified and proper on the part of the Ops not to provide electric connection to the complainant and accordingly, disposed of the case in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.

    The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
    DECISION WITH REASONS

    At the time of hearing the Respondent did not contest the case. However, from the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants we find that the Appellants have taken a standpoint to the effect that as there was non-availability of suitable space for installation of the new electric meter and that on being informed in this aspect the complainant did not cooperate with the OPs/Appellants, the Appellants could not provide the electric connection after installation of new meter as prayed for by the complainant. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, it is the complainant himself who is solely responsible for not having the electric connection and not the Appellants/Ops and thus the Ops/Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement.

    We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record including pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is a fact that the complainant had to deposit an outstanding amount for consumption of electricity though he was not responsible for the said consumption. However, in this aspect we find that the complainant did not cooperate with the Ops as regards providing suitable space in the premises in question for installation of new meter and that the provisions of way-leave has not been complied with and/or provided with by the complainant to the Ops in this regard. We think these two factors are to be complied with by the complainant/Respondent for the purpose of getting electric connection in the manner applied for. Considering the present Appeal in the light of above observation we think that there is some substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal with some modifications in the impugned judgement to the effect that the complainant be also directed to provide necessary way-leave to the OP/Electric Company for the purpose of installation and giving new electric connection to the complainant as per his prayer and application and that too after complying with necessary provisions of the Electricity Act in this regard. Save and except the modifications in this regard the other portion of the impugned judgement stands unaltered.

    Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed in part ex parte without any order as to cost with some modifications to the extent that the complainant/Respondent shall provide necessary way-leave to the OP/Electric Company for the purpose of installation and giving new electric connection to the complainant as per his prayer and application and that too after complying with necessary provisions of the Electricity Act in this regard. Save and except the modifications in this regard the other portion of the impugned judgement stands unaltered.

  6. #6
    NIRMAL JNSH Guest

    Default Unusual increase in the amount of bill.

    Dear sir,

    i nirmal jnsh,resident of shibpur ps officers' quarter,fl-5, 161 g.t road(s),howrah-711102 with consumer number 60042134003 is facing the problem of excess amount of electricity bill.i live in a two bedroom flat with no electricity consuming devices as a.c,washing machine etc,still the bill for september 2011 is rs.2040.our meter is in the ground floor and the meter box is unguarded.i suspect hooking from my meter.thereby i want to shift the meter to a convinient place to so that i can keep it under watch.
    I am a govt.employee with limited means.this huge amount of bill is really burdensome for me.
    Hope you will look into the and take the required action.

    Thanking you
    yours faithfully
    nirmal jnsh

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-14-2014, 03:15 PM
  2. M/s CESC Ltd
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 11:38 AM
  3. Cesc
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-19-2009, 12:29 PM
  4. CESC Ltd
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 10:15 AM
  5. CESC House, Kolkata
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 10:11 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •