Judgment : Dt.30.10.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by Vijender Kr. Surana, s/o Late S.R. Surana of 58/52, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045 against Debabrata Mukherjee, s/o Late Sova Mukherjee, OP No.1, Sourav Mukherjee, s/o D.P. Mukherjee, OP No.2, both of 58/52, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045 and CESC Ltd, District Engineer, Southern District, 6, Mandevilla Gardens, P.S.- Ballygunge, Kolkata-700 019, OP No.3, praying for installation of new meter in the name of the Complainant, to reload the load capacity to 6.60 KW (DOM), to pay Rs.50,000/- for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a peace loving citizen. The premises No.58/52, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045 is a G+2 storied building and Complainant used to reside there with his family in the 2nd floor till 1993. Thereafter, he and his family were shifted to the ground floor and since 1994 Complainant used to pay rent each and every month to which he was issued rent receipts. Complainant used to pay rent regularly amounting to Rs.6,000/- and Rs.200/- as KMC tax. OP No.2 and his mother namely Mrs. Indrani Mukherjee were trying to evict the Complainant and his family members. One of the most significant aspect is that OP No.1 and OP No.2 changed the name of electric meter bearing Consumer No.07111077001 and Meter No.3895498. The alleged meter bearing Consumer No.07111077001 and Meter No.3895498 is filed herewith, the load capacity of this Consumer No. was 2.2kva in the month of April, 2016 it was illegally reduced to 0.6 kva in the month of August, 2016. Due to the reduction in the load capacity Complainant could not get electricity and so Complainant filed an application for new connection from CESC. There was an inspection at the premises and OP No.3 is ready to install new connection. But OP No.1 & OP No.2 are not allowing Complainant to get electric connection.
OP No.3 filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. OP No.3 has further stated that there is no foul play on behalf of OP No.3.
OP No.1 & OP No.2 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. It is their contention that Complainant used to consume electricity from the meter standing in the name of Sona Mukherjee and after her death the meter was changed in the name of Indrani Mukherjee, mother of OP No.2. The Complainant left the premises and shifted to a flat at 4/1, South End Park and since several years he never opened the flat due to which the flat is resulting into material deterioration and other co-sharers have instituted a suit for eviction suit bearing No.141 of 2016. These OPs have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OPs filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OPs filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs filed reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for installation of a new meter in his name. In this regard, in the form of document, it appears that Complainant has filed copy of the electric bill in the name of Indrani Mukherjee and Sova Mukherjee. It is the claim of Complainant that he resides at the premises. On the contrary, OPs have contended that the Complainant has left the premises. In order to prove the possession over the premises, Complainant has filed Xerox copy of the receipts showing that Complainant used to pay rent. These receipts are three in number which does not make it clear as to who received the amount. One of the receipts is of April, 1977, other is of December, 1994 and another is of August, 2016. Complainant did not prefer to file the original receipts from which it would have been clear that Complainant is still in possession of the premises and the allegations brought by the OPs are false and baseless. Further, we do not find that Complainant made deposit to the OP No.3 for separate electric connection. If that be so, the prayer of the Complainant for installation of a new meter cannot be allowed. Similarly, Complainant has prayed for increase of load kv increase of load to 260 kw. In our view this increase of load is a matter between the consumer and the electric company. There is no ground mentioned as to why this Forum shall interfere in increase or decrease of the load of any meter. For this purpose an inspection is made after which the electric company either increases the load or decreases the load.
So, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the allegations brought by him.
Hence,
ordered
CC/593/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
