This complaint is filed by one Smt. Archana Ghosh against the District Engineer, South West district, CESC Ltd., Achinta Roychowdhury, S/o Lt. Kamal Roychowdhury and OC, Thakurpukur P.S., praying for a direction upon the OP No. 1 to provide new electric meter in the name of the Complainant and direction upon the OP No. 2 not to create any disturbance at the time of installation of new meter and also for a direction upon the Proforma OP, i.e., OP No. 3 to restrain the OP No. 2 and his men and agents from causing obstruction and disturbance at the time of installation of the electric meter and also for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 10,000/-.

Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant is a bona fide occupier of Premises No.  51/A, K.K. Roychowdhury Road, Ground floor, P.S. Thakurpukur, P.O. Barisha, Kolkata – 700 008 under the OP No. 2 as a lawful occupier/tenant for more than 8 years with her family members.  On 27-08-2015, she applied for supply of electricity by installing new meter in the said premises from the existing meter room in her name to the OP No. 1 and paid Rs. 200/- as earnest money for this purpose.  Subsequently, the OP No. 1 visited the said premises with its men and agents for inspection and installing the new meter, but the OP No. 2 objected to such installation. 

Thereafter, the Complainant made all such endeavours to convince the OP No. 1 to install the new electric meter, but all her endeavours proved futile.  Further, it is stated that there is a jural relationship of service provider and consumer in between the OP No. 1 and the Complainant and that, it is incumbent upon the OP No. 1 to supply electricity to the Complainant by installing a new meter, but the OP No. 1 has not taken any positive step to discharge its duty.  So, this case.

OP No. 1 filed written statement and denied all the allegations of the complaint.  Further, OP No. 1 has stated that if the Ld. Forum passes necessary order, it is ready to supply electricity to the Complainant.  OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.

OP No. 2 filed written statement and denied the material allegations of the Complainant.  It has been stated in the written version that Complainant is not in occupation of the premises, where she has sought for electric connection.  It is alleged that the Complainant has illegally filed an application before the OP No. 1 for getting electric connection.  So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.  Against that, a questionnaire has been filed by the OP No. 2.

Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition.

It is the case of the Complainant that she is a bona fide occupier of the Premises and CESC, despite being the service provider and receiving requisite money, is not giving electric connection to the intended place.  Accordingly, she has prayed for a direction upon the OP No. 1 to provide new electric meter in her name at the existing meter board at the said premises. 

It is asserted by the Complainant that she is a bona fide occupier of Premises No. 51/A, K.K. Roychowdhury Road, Ground floor, P.S. Thakurpukur, P.O. Barisha, Kolkata – 700 008.  It is claimed that she is residing there for more than 8 years along with her family members.  However, despite making such claim, no supportive document has been filed from the side of the Complainant to establish that she is in lawful occupation of the premises in question.  Frankly speaking, we are totally at a loss, in what capacity she is occupying the premises in question – neither any money receipt towards payment of rent nor copy of the concerned tenancy agreement is filed to back her claim.

The Complainant has filed photocopies of Aadhaer card and PAN card with an ostensible purpose of supporting her claim.  However, on scrutiny, it appears that the date of birth is mentioned as 01-01-1967 in the Aadhar card, whereas according to PAN card, her date of birth is 18-12-1961.  Such unexplained discrepancy itself is an indicator of the fact as of how much bona fide the intention of the Complainant has been to get such service connection. 

Accordingly, we are of view that the Complainant has not come up before us with clean hands and as such, we are of view that she does not deserve any relief.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/95/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1& 2 and ex parte against OP No. 3, but without any costs.