Sri Krishna Kumar Jaiswal,

son of Late Ram Newar Shaw,

residing at 41/5, Makardah Road, P.S. Bantra,

P.O. Kadamtala, District. Howrah                                        COMPLAINANT.

Versus 

1.            District Engineer,

                CESC Ltd.

2.            Sri Nemai Chandra Dey,

                Son of Nirapada Dey, residing at 41/5, Makardah Road,

                P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

                District . Howrah.                                                             OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                               P   R    E     S    E    N     T

                1.     Honble President    :     Shri J.  N.  Ray.

                2.     Honble Member     :      Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty. 

                3.     Honble Member     :      Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.

                                        C      O      U       N        S        E        L

Representative for the complainant           :   Shri Santanu Ghosal,

                                                                            Ld. Advocate.

Representative for the opposite party no. 1 : Shri Abhijit Bagchi,

                                                                            Smt. Kakali Mitra Bagchi,

                                                                            Ld. Advocates.

Representative for the opposite party no. 2

                                                                          :    Shri Sukanta Majhi,

                                                                               Ld. Advocate.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

                This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986  praying for installation of electric connection and meter on the  ground of deficiency in service.

                Fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a tenant under the o.p. no. 2 of the scheduled premises 41/5, Makardah Road, P.S. Bantra, Post. Kadamtala, District . Howrah,. The complainant was the former consumer of CESC Ltd. vide meter no. 163339, consumer no. 57072027006.  However, the service connection was disconnected by the CESC Ltd. on technical reason a long ago. Subsequently the complainant applied for a domestic service connection to the CESC Ltd. on 08.01.2010. O.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. intimated the complainant that an inspection would be carried out on 28.01.2010. Accordingly the complainant deposited the required money. On 14.01.2010 the complainant received the letter from o.p. no. 1 under reference no. 06/00621/10 dated 14.01.2010 with an written objection dated 08.01.2010 by one Mahibur Rahaman Mollah, Advocate of o.p. no. 2. The complainant submits that there is no order of injunction passed by any court of law which resists for providing  and/or installing new service connection to the complainant. The o.p. no. 1 should not restrain themselves from proceeding with the proposed work simply on the basis of one advocates notice. So the complainant is entitled to get electric connection and by not supplying  that CESC has committed deficiency in service. Hence the application.

                Both o.ps. no. 1 & 2 have appeared in this case by  filling  separate written versions.

                In their written version o.p. no. 1 submits that the case is not maintainable in its present frame. O.p. no. 1 submits that the matter is a very old one and as such the relevant papers / documents are not readily available at this stage. The o.p. no. 1 most humbly submits that the old connection was disconnected due to outstanding dues. Moreover, the complainant has applied for supply of electricity on 08-01-2010 for 0.50 KW commercial load vide MR No. 06/00621/10 at the said premises of the complainant. Accordingly the o.p. no. 1 sent a letter to the complainant for inspection. Subsequently the objection letter by the advocate of o.p. no. 2 was received. Both the complainant and the said objector were asked to furnish their remarks and elucidation on 14-01-2010. However, on 28-01-2010 the CESC Ltd. attempted for an inspection but could not do so  as the applicant / representative was not present at the site. . O.p. no. 1 duly informed the matter by letter dated 06-02-2010. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no. 1. So the instant case is liable to be dismissed against o.p. no. 1 with cost.

                O.p. no. 2 denies all the allegations in their written version. Counsel for o.p.no. 2 argues that there were two sub-meters in the tenanted premises but the complainant did not pay separate electric charges to the o.p. no. 1 and as such the o.p. no. 1 had taken back the meter from the said premises. Moreover, the connection was prayed for commercial purpose not for domestic purpose. The complainant is running his business in the tenanted premises. The said tenanted room is now closed. The complainant is praying for new electric meter only to sublet the said premises to other person. The complainant has filed one suit being T.S. No. 123/2006 for declaration of his tenancy which is pending and on the other hand the o.p. no. 2 has filed another suit for eviction against the complainant being T.S. NO. 47 / 2007 which is also pending.  So the complainant is not get any relief as prayed for. Therefore, the said case should be dismissed with cost against o.p. no. 2.

                In view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination   :

Is the consumer complaint maintainable   before the Consumer Forum ?

Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1, CESC Ltd. ?

 Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

DECISION  WITH REASONS    :

Point No. 1.

                               It is admitted that the complainant applied for separate meter in his tenanted premises and hence deposited the security money. On the application the men of  o.p. no. 1 went to the spot for inspection though they have received an objection letter. But due to absence of the complainant the same could not be made.

                It is also admitted fact that the o.p. no. 2 has sent an objection letter by their advocate though o.p. no. 2 has no right to give objection restraining electricity connection to anybody.

                It may also be mentioned that o.p. no. 1, CESC in their written version did not dispute the fact that the complainant has deposited the security money. But on scrutiny of the papers with the record it is revealed that the complainant has applied for separate meter and installation of electric connection. But he has applied for commercial service connection for his shop room. Section 2(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 clearly mentions that consumer means any person who,- hires or avails of any services for a consideration  which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person ( who hires or avails of  ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ( but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose).

                It is clearly mentioned  in C.P. Act, 1986 is that – For the purposes of this clause,   commercial purpose  does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

                In this application there is no proof given by the complainant that he has running his business only for his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant has not raised anything about this matter rather in his petition he has written that he has applied for domestic connection. Therefore, Forum is in view that the complainant has wanted to mislead the Forum by giving false statement. When Forum has asked for clarification, the counsel for complainant argues that if any seller wants to take electric connection in his small shop room, it will be obviously for domestic purpose. In his complaint there is no whisper about his requisition of electricity for commercial load.

                Hence, the complainant is not a consumer under the meaning of C.P. Act, 1986. The Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order as the application is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

Points no. 2 & 3.

                Admittedly the complainant has applied for supply of electricity in his tenanted portion. It is admitted by o.p. no. 1 CESC Ltd. that they have received an application from the complainant and subsequently they have also sent a letter to the complainant for inspection. The men of CESC Ltd. went for inspection but same could not be done due to absence of the complainant / representative of the complainant, though CESC received an objection letter by one Mahibur Rahaman Mollah, Advocate of  o.p. no. 2.

                Now turning to the question of deficiency on the part of o.p. no. 1 it appears that o.p. no. 1 has not refused to provide electric supply to the complainant by fixing new meter at the tenanted premises of the complainant. Thus the complainant has failed to prove that o.p. CESC Ltd. has committed any deficiency in service.

                As point no. 1 & 2 fail consequently point no.  3 fails.      

                Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

                In the result the application fails.

                Hence,

                                                                O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                                That the consumer complaint is dismissed on contest against all the

o.ps. but without cost.

                                Let certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.