C.E.S.C.Ltd vs ANGURBALA SADHUKHAN

THIS appeal is directed assailing the judgment and order No.77 dt. 22.12.92 passed in CRF Case No.128 of 1992 by the Howrah District Consumer Redressal Forum hereinafter referred to as Howrah District Forum.

BY the impugned order dt. 22.12.92 and Ld. Howrah District Forum directed to shift the meter and D.C. Service standing in the name of the Complainant from the room of one Gopal Chandra Ghosh an illegal occupier for which the complainant was and ready to comply with the requisite formalities. The appellant accordingly intimated certain formalities to be complied for shifting the service connection by a letter written in its behalf to the respondent who agreed to comply with all formalities but the one of formalities namely the consent from all existing consumers was not possible to be complied by the complainant. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties before the Howrah District Forum raised no objection. Accordingly the Ld. Howrah District Forum allowed the prayer of the complainant in terms of the impugned order. JUDGMENT It is a case simplicitor against compliance of the formalities.

The appellant is to shift the service connection from the room of one illegal occupier to his own place of the complainant/respondent. We do not find to have any concern of the appellant to item No.5 of its letter dt. 26.10.92. Had any objection been raised from the existing consumers then it would have been separate issue, it is as if headache of a headless. We are also of opinion that there cannot be any rule or regulation for obtaining consent from co-consumer for giving separate service connection in any premises atleast no such trule was produced before us.

IT is also curious to note that the appellant has referred to a decision reported in I (1992) CPJ 267 in the memo of appeal and it is contended by the appellant that Consumer Redressal Forum cannot pass any order in the form of "to do or to desist" which has no relevancy or nexus with this case, because the National Commission in interpretation of Section 14(1)(d) has observed the said finding but other provisions of Section 14 duly empowers the Consumer Redressal Forum to award appropriate reliefs and the National Commission itself in numerous cases have given mandatory or prohibitory orders i.e. ''to do or desist in nature of directions by way of final reliefs in all cases to the complainants while disposing of the complaints as per provisions of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) in addition to a warding compensation in the same cases as per provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. We therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order of Howrah District Forum and award of Rs. 500/- for cost the proceedings and harassment caused to the complainant/respondent to be paid by the appellant within 30 days from the date of this order. Appeal dismissed with costs.