CESC Ltd. vs USHA DEVI AGARWAL

-THIS is an appeal arising against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah on 13.4.2000. The case of the complainant in brief is stated hereunder.

THE complainant is the widow of Pradip Kr. Agarwal who was a tenant under Padma Lochan Pal since deceased, at 22 and 23/1, N.S. Road, Howrah. THE complainant made an application to the CESC for installation of a separate electric connection in her name. Adhir Kr. Pal, son of late Padma Lochan Pal, raised serious objection in giving separate electric connection in the name of the complainant. CESC also did not take initiative to instal a separate meter for electric connection in her name. Aggrieved by the behaviour of CESC the complainant filed the case before the Forum praying for direction for installation of the same. Forum in its order directed the CESC to give separate service connection for supply of electricity at the part under the tenancy of the complainant within one month from the date of completion of the formalities by the complainant. It was further ordered that Adhir Kr. Pal (OP-3) or his people shall not raise any resistance in the work of installation by the CESC Ltd.

Being dissatisfied with the above order the appellant-CESC Ltd. has preferred this appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that due to long standing private disputes, the company could not proceed for effecting supply. A strong objection was raised by Smt. Reba Rani Pal, wife of late Padma Lochan Pal, and his son Adhir Pal in giving separate connection to the complainant. An objection letter was forwarded to the appellant also. In spite of such objection CESC tried to carry out the job for giving connection on number of occasions, but could not do so due to serious resistance raised by the occupants of the premises. Thereafter, CESC Ltd. requested the present respondent to inform it a date and time when free access to the meter board position would be made available to enable the company to execute the job. But no such arrangement has yet been made by the respondent. It is further submitted by the appellant that the Forum below failed to appreciate that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the company in any manner and as it is a dispute between the landlord and tenant, it cannot be decided in Consumer Court. Such civil dispute is likely to be decided by Civil Court. According to the appellant the impugned order of the Forum is illegal, improper and liable to be set aside.

PERUSING all the documents and papers we notice that it is an undisputed fact that the present respondent, Smt. Usha Devi Agarwal is a widow of P.K. Agarwal who was tenant under Padma Lochan Pal, since deceased at 22 and 23/1, N.S. Road, Howrah. The respondent and her daughters have inherited the right of tenancy from P.K. Agarwal. The respondent is paying the rent before the Rent Controller, Howrah. She made an application for installation of separate connection in her name to the CESC but her landlord made an objection in this regard. The appellant submits that it tried several times to instal separate connection in her name at the said premises but was resisted by the landlord of that premises. In this context, we may mention a judgment reported in [1995 (2) CLJ 168], which held that an occupier can get supply of electricity from the licensee without the consent of the owner of the premises, but of course the occupier must be a person in lawful occupation of the concerned building. In another case reported in I (2001) CPJ 44, this State Commission held that a lawful tenant/reported is entitled to get a separate connection in his own name and the consent of the landlord is not necessary. It is crystal clear that the landlady or her son cannot resist the CESC Ltd. from installation of a separate meter in favour of the present respondent as she is a lawful tenant of the premises in question. CESC submits that a new service connection cannot be provided where the supply is existing in the premises in question. During hearing the respondents 1 and 2 did not controvert it. Respondent 2 is agreed in getting a separate meter at the common place. Respondent 1 also accepts such opinion. Hence, it is ordered, the appellant shall install a separate meter at the common place for supply of electricity of the premises. The respondent 1 shall complete all the formalities as per the Electricity Act before installation of the separate meter. Respondent 2 shall not create any resistance against this installation. CESC shall instal new separate meter in the name of the respondent 1 within a period of one month after completion of all formalities.

THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed in part on contest. The order of the Forum below is also affirmed in part. With such modification the appeal is disposed. of. Appeal partly allowed.