SUBHAS KUMAR DEY vs C.E.S.C. Ltd.

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, 24-Pargnas(S), on 27.4.2004 in Case No. 18/2004 wherein the Forum dismissed the case on contest without any cost.

THE brief facts of the case of the complainant before the Forum below were that the complainant applied for electricity to the O.P.-1-C.E.S.C. on 4.8.2003 and he was informed by the C.E.S.C. that an inspection would be made on 6.10.2003. Subsequently he was informed by the O.P. that due to objection raised by one Sankar Dey, uncle of the complainant, electricity could not be provided to him. THE complainant''s allegation was that being an occupier of the premises he has every right to obtain electricity and no person could raise any objection whatsoever in getting electricity by him. His further contention was that premises wherein electricity was sought for was a joint property. In his opinion the O.P.-1 was deficient in service on its part as it could not install separate meter in his name. THEreafter he filed the case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O.P.-1 to provide him separate meter in his name. Being dissatisfied with the abovementioned order the appellant-Subhas Kumar Dey has preferred the present appeal before this Commission and prayed for installation of separate meter in his name and also submits that he is now living in dark. The appellant has further submitted a title suit is pending in the Civil Court and at first a status quo has been passed, thereafter he prayed for extension of the injunction order, wherein his prayer was allowed on contest and earlier status quo order was modified to the extent that the present appellant would be at liberty to enjoy electricity without creating any disturbance of the privacy of the bedroom of the present respondent No. 2- Sankar Dey. According to the appellant the judgment passed by the Forum is erroneous, unjust and liable to be set aside.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-C.E.S.C has submitted by filing w/o that the people of the C.E.S.C. went at the premises of the appellant for inspection, but due to resistance by the respondent No. 2-Sankar Dey the C.E.S.C. could not inspect the site and informed the appellant to arrange free access to the meter board position. The C.E.S.C. is willing to install separate meter but not separate service connection as it cannot be provided as per the I.E. Act. The learned Advocate has also submitted that if the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are ready to shift the meter board from the bedroom of the respondent No. 2 to a common place, then the C.E.S.C. will provide separate meter in the name of the appellant, but the C.E.S.C. will not bear the shifting cost. According to the respondent No. 1 the appeal is harassing and liable to be dismissed.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted by filing w/o that the Forum below has passed a justified order and as the present dispute cannot be a subject matter under the Consumer Protection Act, its remedy lies before the Civil Court. According to the respondent No. 2 he has no objection regarding installation of the separate meter in the name of the appellant but he will not allow disturbing the privacy of his bedroom as per modification order passed by the Civil Court. THE respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment and hearing the submission of the parties it is noticed by us that the appellant applied for installation of separate electric meter in his name. After receiving his application the C.E.S.C. made an attempt to inspect the site, but due to the resistance raised by the uncle (R-2) of the appellant the C.E.S.C.-people could not inspect the premises. It is pertinent to mention the entire premises is a joint property and regarding the partition of the property the title suit is pending before the Civil Court. The Civil Court at first passed a status quo order, thereafter the appellant prayed for extension of the injunction order, wherein his prayer was allowed on contest and earlier status quo order was modified to the extent that the present appellant would be at liberty to enjoy electricity without creating any disturbance of the privacy of the bedroom of the present respondent No. 2-Sankar Dey. The C.E.S.C. has submitted that it is willing to install separate meter in the name of the appellant but not the separate service connection as it is not permissible as per the I.E. Act. Regarding installation of separate meter the respondent No. 2 is of the opinion that he has no objection regarding installation of separate meter but he will not allow disturbing the privacy of his bedroom. We have noticed that the present meter board is lying in the bedroom of the respondent No. 2 and he will not allow the C.E.S.C.-people to install the separate meter in that meter board. We know that electricity is very essential in every day life and in the instant case the appellant is living without electricity for a prolonged period. In this respect we may refer to a judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140, where Hon''ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Ganguly has held that "the expression ''life'' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in a civilized society. The right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of ''life'' under Article 21." His Lordship further held "in the current day realities of growing consumerism electricity is an essential requirement. If a person is willing to obtain supply of electricity on payment of necessary charges to the licensee and the licensee is willing to supply electricity, the right of such person to get electricity must be construed keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India". The premises where the appellant is residing, is a joint property, but it is yet to be partitioned and the partition suit is pending before the Civil Court. Therefore, in our considered view until the property is partitioned and the civil suit is disposed of, the appellant has equal right in every inches of the premises in question and he has also the right to enjoy electricity from a separate meter, but obviously without making any interference in the privacy of the bedroom of the respondent No. 2. In our opinion installation of the meter board in a bed room was not justified and for this reason it is now necessary for shifting the meter board from the existing place to a common place.

HENCE it is ordered that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 shall take step for shifting the meter board from the existing place i.e., bed room of the respondent No. 2 to a common place within a very short time. The shifting cost will be borne by the appellant and the respondent No. 2. The C.E.S.C. is directed to provide the necessary help from its end in this respect. After shifting of the meter board the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are directed to let the C.E.S.C. know and thereafter the respondent No. 1 shall install separate meter in the name of the present appellant within 15 days of getting the information of shifting. The appellant shall comply with the formalities as per the I.E. Act before installation of the separate meter. The respondent No. 2 shall not create any resistance during the time of installation of the separate meter and the appellant shall arrange free access to the meter board for the C.E.S.C. people. With the above observation the appeal is allowed on contest but however without any cost. The appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal allowed.