Judgment : Dt.10.3.2017

            This is a complaint made by Jarina Khatoon wife of Late Md. Aslam, residing at B-2/21/1/NewTamizuddin Mistry Lane, P.O.- Bidhan Garh, P.S.- Rabindra Nagar, Kolkata-700 066, District- South 24-Parganas against (1) CESC Ltd., West Suburban District, P-18, Taratalla Road, P.S.-Taratalla, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.1, (2) District Engineer, CESC Ltd, West Suburban District, P-18, Taratalla Road, P.S.-Taratalla, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.2 and (3) Deputy Chief Engineer (Distribution), West Suburban District, P-18, Taratalla Road, P.S.-Taratalla, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon the OPs for supply of electric connection in scheduled premises and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is the owner of premises of Tamizuddin Mistry Lane, OP No.1, is a company carrying on electric supply business. Complainant made application for new connection at the office of OP No.1. OP after receiving the application fixed a date for inspection and sent a bill for Rs.6,355/- which Complainant paid but till now electric connection has not been installed. Finding no other alternative Complainant issued notice and thereafter filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegation of the complaint. Further, OPs have stated that a junction box has to be installed for supplying electric connection. But, they are unable to install the junction box. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein facts of complaint have been reiterated. OPs also have filed affidavit-in-chief. Against the evidence of OP Complainant filed questionnaire and thereafter argument were heard.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            It is settled law that any occupier of premises is entitled for electric connection. Complainant has stated that he is residing at Tamizuddin Mistri Lane but no premise No. is mentioned. In the prayer of complaint petition Complainant has stated that he is the owner of premises of Tamizuddin Mistry Lane. There is no mention as how many premises are there in the Tamizuddin Mistry Lane. Copy of voter ID Card also reflects that Complainant resides at Tamizuddin Mistry Lane but no premises is mentioned. Installation of electricity in a lane is the concerned of to public at large and not of an individual. As such, we are of the view that Complainant failed to proof as to which premises he occupies and where installation of electric connection is required. No document to establish of ownership or possession of the premises is filed. So, Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/342/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.