This is a complaint filed by one Praveen Murarka against OP No. 1, CESC Ltd. (Southern Regional Office) and OP No. 2, District Engineer (Calcutta South Division), CESC Ltd., praying for restoration of old meter or to replace the same with a new meter as because, OPs most illegally, without any prior intimation, removed the said meter and for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 50,000/-.
Facts in brief, are that father of the Complainant, Bhagirath Murarka was enjoying a domestic electricity connection, bearing meter no. 2445710, supplied by the OP. This meter was meant for the 1st floor of the Premises No. 1/C, Mandeville Gardens, Kolkata – 700 019. Complainant used to enjoy the electricity connection by making payment against all power consumption through the aforesaid meter, as raised by the OP from time to time in the name of his father. Allegedly, on 20-08-2013, all on a sudden, without providing any prior intimation, few persons, claiming theselves to be the men of OPs, visited the premises of the Complainant and removed the meter. It is stated that the Complainant was not present overthere at that time. The Complainant visited the office of the OPs on 15-10-2013 and he was advised to meet the officials of the OP No. 1. Accordingly, the Complainant met some officials of the OP No. 1 on 17-10-2013. However, the OPs did not take any positive step to redress his grievance. So, he shot letters to the Commercial Executive as well as the Grievance Redressal Officer, but without any success. The Complainant also served legal notice upon the OPs through his Ld. Advocate on 07-01-2014. However, this too did not evoke any positive response from the side of the OPs. Finding no other alternative, Complainant filed this case.
OPs file WV denying inter alia all the material allegations of the complaint. It is stated that meter no. 2445710 was registered in the name of Bhagirath Murarka, since deceased, and as per the terms of Clause 14 of the Regulation No. 53 of the W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission, there is no scope to accede to the Complainant’s request for a separate meter and adherence to the law of the land, does not tantamount to deficiency in service. So, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein he has virtually reiterated the facts stated in his petition of complaint. Thereafter, arguments were advanced by the respective Ld. Advocates of the parties and the case was fixed for passing order.
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for by him.
First relief sought for by the Complainant is to restore the old meter or to replace it with a new one. In this regard, we find that the disputed meter stood in the name of Complainant’s father, who is no more in this world. Accordingly, as per explicit Rules as stated hereinabove, the meter was removed from the premises of the Complainant. The vehement opposition of the Complainant to such removal of the meter by the OPs notwithstanding, to call a spade a spade, provisions of statute is sacrosanct to any Court of Law and Consumer Forum is no exception. In such a scenario, when express provisions of Rules referred to above prohibit such use of electricity, we afraid, our hands are tied. Under any circumstances, we cannot endorse any unauthorized use of electricity.
Following demise of his father, Complainant was free to approach the OPs to incorporate necessary transfer of the electric meter in his name or apply for a fresh meter following due procedures. However, no material is forthcoming before us to suggest that the Complainant did make any such endeavour.
We are fully at one with the OP that acting in accordance with the due provisions of law is no crime. The OP was fully justified to act in accordance with the law of the land and for doing so; no fault can be attributed to them.
Consequently, the Complainant is also not entitled to the other reliefs, such as, compensation and litigation cost.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/89/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. Parties do bear their respective costs.
