West Bengal

Kolkata-III(South)

CC/121/2016

Kapildeo Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinanath Shaw - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal
18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027
 
Complaint Case No. CC/121/2016
 
1. Kapildeo Sharma
S0/O Sitaram Sharma, 21 Parthak Para Road, P.S.- Parnasree Kol-70006
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Dinanath Shaw
S/O Late Ramlakhan Shaw, 21 Parthak Para Road, P.S.- Parnasree Kol-700060.
2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd.
South West Region,P-18,Taratala road, P.S. Taratala Kol-700088.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 27 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

            This is a complaint made by Kapildeo Sharma, son of Sitaram Sharma, 21, Pathak Para Road, P.S.-Parnasree, Kolkata-700 060 against (1) Dinanath Shaw, son of Late Ramlakhan Shaw, 21, Parthak Para Road, P.S.- Parnasree, Kolkata – 700 060, OP No.1 and (2) District Engineer, CESC Ltd., South West Region, P-18, Taratala Road, P.S.-Taratala, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.2, praying for (i) direction upon the OP not to raise any objection or create disturbance in installation of new meter at the shop room at premises No.21, Pathak Para Road and a direction upon the OPs to install new meter in the name of the Complainant in the shop room of premises No.21, Pathak Para Road.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a carpenter, a lawful tenant in respect of one shop room, lying and situated at 21 Parthak para Road, Kolkata-700 060 along with one bath room by the father of OP No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- for running furniture business. Complainant is running his furniture business and pay rent regularly at the time of induction of the complainant through the father of OP No.1 he used to get electric line. OP No.1 in the year 2011 disconnected the electric line and so Complainant faced problems. Complainant’s father knowing this fact on number of occasions requested the OP No.1 for electric connection, but of no use. Complainant applied to OP No.2. But, OP No.1 made objection in installation of electricity to the shop room. OP No.2 made attempt to install the electricity, but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that Complainant is not a consumer. As such, this complaint is not maintainable against him. OP No.1 has stated that an ejectment suit bearing No.23101 of 2012 has been filed by OP No.1 against the Complainant and it is pending before the Ld. 5th Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore. OP No.1 has further stated that Complainant has made false declaration and so is not entitled to any electric connection. This OP has also denied other allegations and prayed for dismissal of this case. OP No.2 has also filed written version wherein OP No.2 has denied all the allegations of the complaint and has stated that they are ready and willing to install electricity, but, OP No.1 is putting objection and if this Forum passes order for electricity they will comply the order of this Forum.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OPs filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs filed evidence.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            In this regard, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP No.1 not to raise any objection by creating disturbances for installation of the new meter at the shop room at premises No.21, Pathak Para Road. To this OP No.1 has stated that Complainant is not a tenant and he has done many mischief in the said premises for which title suits are pending. After this OP No.1 has stated that Complainant is not a consumer of this OP No.1 and so Complainant is not entitled to any relief against this OP No1.

            OP No.2 CESC has filed written version and has submitted in the affidavit-in-chief that CESC is a Company and willing and ready to supply electricity provided no obstruction is made by any person.

            On perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it appears that Complainant has filed two challans reflecting that he paid the rent to the Rent Controller. This establishes that there is doubt over the tenancy of Complainant over the premises on which Complainant alleges that he is a tenant. Further, the papers submitted by the Complainant also reveal that there is dispute between the Complainant and OP No.1 which is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court.

            In such circumstance, we are of the view that it would not be wise to make any order.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/121/2016 is dismissed on contest.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.