Judgment : 27.07.2016
This is a complaint made by Hifzur Rahman Khan of 43, Ekbalpore Lane. P.S. – Ekbalpore, against District Engineer CESC Ltd. OP No.1 and Proforma OP Officer-in-Charge Ekbalpore P.S. praying for direction upon Proforma OP No.2 to restrain the interested parties, his men and agent from causing obstruction and disturbance at the time of installation of Electric Meter in the name of Complainant and direction upon OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is owner, occupier and in possession of the premises No.43, Ekbalpore Lane. On 26.5.2015 Complainant applied for supply of electricity by installing a new meter for this purpose Complainant deposited Rs.200/-. On 26.5.2015 OP No.1 visited the premises for inspection and on 5.6.2015 for installing new meter. On inspection OP No.1 claim Rs.21,614/- from the Complainant as earlier deed.
Complainant have deposited the said amount on 4.8.2015 and also deposited Rs.200/- as earnest money. But, OP No.1 did not turn up to install new electric meter. Complainant met District Engineer who advised him to lodge a docket and Complainant lodged the docket. But, OP No.1 did not turn up.
Further contention is that OP No.1 is duty bound to install the new meter. Thereafter, Complainant issued a notice to OP No.1 but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP CESC have filed affidavit-in-chief in place of written version and denied all the allegation mentioned in the complaint petition. Further, OP No.1 has alleged that the application of new service on the premises was cancelled and the amount was refunded. The electric supply to that premises was disconnected for theft of Electricity. Further, OP No.1 has submitted that they are ready to provide meter if this Forum passes the necessary order.
Decision with reasons.
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein Complainant has mentioned all the facts which has been narrated in the complaint.
Main points for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
First prayer is a direction upon the OP No.1 to provide new Electric Meter in the name of Complainant in the existing meter board. Xerox copy of bill of Rs21,614/- is filed. No original documents have been filed to establish that Complainant has deposited Rs.21,614/-.
Further, Xerox copy of deed of lease is filed showing that Hifzur Rahman Khan resides at the premises. But, this deed of lease reveals that a tile shed structure is there. This lease deed is of 4.11.2003. However, no document is filed to show that Complainant is in possession of the premises on the date when he filed this complaint. No tax receipt has been filed. As such, the allegation of Complainant is that he is the owner, occupier and in possession of 43, Ekbalpore Lane, P.S.-Ekbalpore is not proved and so he is not entitled to relief.
Reliefs B which seeks a direction upon proforma OP No.2 to restrain the interested parties appears to be vague and ambiguous. Similarly, prayer C and D are also not proved.
Hence ordered
CC/96/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against proforma OP No.2.