State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee & Anr. vs C.E.S.C. Limited & Ors. on 16 June, 2010
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027 FA No: 94 Of 2010 (Arisen out of order dated 19/01/2010 in Case No. 120/2009 of District Howrah DF , Howrah)
1. Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee.
S/O Late Sudhakar Mukherjee. 34, Baje Shibpur Road. PO & PS. Shibpur, Dist. Howrah.
2. Smt. Swapana Mukherjee.
W/O Sri Bibek Ranjan Mukherjee. 34, Baje Shibpur Road. PO & PS. Shibpur, Dist. Howrah.
....Appellant Versus
1. C.E.S.C. Limited.
represented by its Director, CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700001.
2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd.
433/1, G.T. Road (north) PS. Golabari, Dist. Howrah-711101.
3. Sri Bilash Samanta.
S/O Late Khaduram Samanta. 9/6, Nepal Saha Lane. PS. Shibpur, Howrah.
....Respondent BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI , PRESIDENT MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER , Member MR. SHANKAR COARI , Member PRESENT:
Mr. Asok Kumar Das., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr.Alok Mukhopadhyay.Mr.Monojit Bandyopadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent 1 *JUDGEMENT/ORDER No. 4/16.06.2010 HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.
Appellant through Mr. S. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through Mr. S. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 3 through Mr. Aloke Kr. Laha, the Ld. Advocate are present. This is an appeal against the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by D.C.D.R.F., Howrah in Complaint Case No. HDF 120 of 2009 whereby the complaint was allowed and appropriate directions were given for giving new electric connection in the name of the Complainant at the tenanted premises of the Complainant. The Appellant is the landlord - O.P. The sole contention of the Appellant is that the parties are already involved in a civil proceeding wherein interim order has been passed in favour of the tenant and the appeal against the said interirm order before the Appellate Court has given protection to the tenant and, therefore, the present complaint on the self same cause of action is not maintainable. We have heard Mr. Roychowdhury, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate for the C.E.S.C. and Mr. Laha, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant - tenant. On perusal of the records we are of the opinion that the civil suit is pending between the landlord and tenant for eviction of the tenant from the tenant premises. Neither the interim order nor the appellate order alters the scope of the suit. Therefore, we find that by virtue of interim order and the appellate order from the interim order the right of the tenant only to get a fresh connection and not reconnection of the earlier electricity supply disconnected some time back, was upheld. In the circumstances the proceeding before the Forum for relief of fresh connection does not appear to be on the same cause of action which is involved in the said civil suit.
There being no other contention advanced we are of the opinion that the impugned order is required to be confirmed. There is no irregularity. Accordingly the appeal fails and the impugned order is affirmed. The parties are directed to co-operate in the matter of implementation of the said order.
Pronounced Dated the 16 June 2010 [HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI] PRESIDENT [MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER] Member [MR. SHANKAR COARI] Member