This is a complaint filed by one Md. Rakib, S/o Lt. Abdul Sattar of B-2-19/11, New Tumizuddin Mistry Lane, P.S. Rabindra Nagar (formerly P.S. Metiabruz), P.O. Bidhangarh, Kolkata – 700 066 against CESC Ltd. (West Suburban district), District Engineer, CESC Ltd. (West Suburban district) and Dy. Chief Engineer (Distribution), CESC Ltd., (West Suburban district), praying for a direction upon the OP to supply electric connection at the schedule premises within a period as directed by this Forum, to pay Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and another Rs. 10,000/- as cost.

            Facts in brief, are that, Complainant is the owner of the schedule premises and OP, CESC Ltd. is the company engaged in the business of supply of electricity.  Complainant made an application for electric connection and thereafter paid MASD bill, so issued by the OPs.  Allegedly, despite deposit of requisite money, electric connection has not been given to the premises of the Complainant.  Finding no other alternative, Complainant got in touch with his Ld. Advocate and served legal notice upon the OPs on 24-09-2015, and thereafter filed this case.

            OP, CESC ltd. filed WV and denied all the allegations of the complaint.  Further, OP has stated that they did attempt to provide electricity but could not do so due to strong objection raised by local people. 

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.  Complainant has filed copy of the MASD bill which reveals that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs 6,355/-.  However, no other document is filed to establish that the Complainant is in occupation of the premises mentioned in the cause title. 

            In the cause title, we find that, the address is mentioned as B-2-19/11, New Tumizuddin Mistry Lane, P.S. Rabindra Nagar (formerly P.S. Metiabruz), P.O. Bidhangarh, Kolkata – 700 066, of which the Complainants claims to be the owner.  In the MASD bill, the address which the Complainant furnished is mentioned.  However, no document is forthcoming that the Complainant is in occupation of that premises.  Further, there is no clarification in what capacity/status the Complainant is living in the said premises  Although Complainant has introduced himself as the owner of the said premises, no document is furnished to establish that he is even in possession of the premises.  No title deed has been filed by the Complainant to establish his claim that he is the owner of the premises mentioned in the cause title of the complaint, as claimed by him.

            True it is that CESC is bound to supply electricity to even an occupier.  But, on the reverse, it is also true that the applicant should furnish cogent documentary proof to establish the bona fide of his claim.  Since no document is forthcoming, save and except the statement of the Complainant as regards his ownership status, we are of view that Complainant has miserably failed to prove the bona fide of his right to get such service connection and consequently, he deserves no relief.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

            that CC/151/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP, but without any cost.