The petitioner is the owner of a two storied building and wherein three (3) Domestic Electric Meters exist beneath the stair case. That the main Electric Meter is standing in the name of the petitioner vide consumer no. 66022079003 and the rest two meters are the submeters, amongst which one is standing in the name of the elder son of the petitioner namely Sri Sujit Das vide consumer no. 66022079030 and the other meter is standing in the name of the younger son of the petitioner namely Sri Rajib Das vide consumer no. 66022079012. That the petitioner filed application before the office of the opposite party to shift the above mentioned three electric meters outside his residence and the petitioner has also informed the said matter to the Chief General Manager(Customer Relation Consumer Grievance Cell ), C.E.S.C. Ltd. C.E.S.C. House, 4th floor Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 001 vide Letter dated 26.12.2013.
That as per the revised offer letter dated 25.02.2014 the office of the opposite party after inspection informed the petitioner that in order to carry out the work as per the application of the petitioner it is necessary to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,695/- ( eight thousand six hundred ninety five ) to the office of the opposite party and as per said instruction the petitioner has deposited the above referred amount to the office of the opposite party on 26.05.2014.
That it is very much curious to note that inspite of receiving the said amount by the opposite party, the opposite party did not carry the work of shifting of the meters as per application of the petitioner.
That several correspondences were made by the petitioner to the various authorities of the C.E.S.C. That on 24.06.2015 the petitioner has filed an application before the then Hon’ble Minister in charge of power and nonconventional energy sources, government of West Bengal regarding the matter but no result.
That thereafter the petitioner through his Learned Advocate of High Court, Calcutta namely Pallab Mohon Chakraborty sent a letter by Registered Post with A/D to the Opposite Party on 26.09.2015 and the said letter was received by the office of the opposite party on 28.09.2015 with seal but no result.
That the petitioner being a senior citizen of India has been facing serious inconveniences as the opposite party have not shifted the above mentioned Three Electric Meters from their present place till today as per application of the petitioner.
That the opposite party did not return back the money to the petitioner till today as deposited by the petitioner before the office of the opposite party. According to law the opposite party is bound to do the work of shifting the electric meters as per prayer of the application of the petitioner.
That the above mentioned acts and conducts of the opposite party clearly goes to show the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for which the old, aged, ailing, senior citizen petitioner is suffering from acute mental pain and agony as assessed of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac ) only.
That the petitioner on several occasions went to the office of the opposite party to know the fate of the application as filed by the petitioner before the office of the opposite party with a prayer to shift three Electric Meters from its present place, but the opposite party intentionally harassed the petitioner day by day without any sufficient cause or reason as assessed of Rs. 50,000/- ( fifty thousand ) only.
That finding no other alternative the petitioner compelled to institute the instant case before this Forum for a direction upon the opposite party to do the work of shifting the three (3) Electric meters as per prayer of the application of the petitioner within specific date; order of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) only to the petitioner by the opposite party for the mental pain and agony of the petitioner; order of payment of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) only to the petitioner by opposite party for the harassment of the petitioner and litigation cost and other reliefs as this forum deems fit and proper.
OP appeared by fling written version denied the allegations as leveled against him that inspite of receiving the amount of Rs. 8,695/-, the O.P. did not carry out the work of shifting of meters or that several correspondence were made or that inspite of sending letter on 25.09.2015 no result was received by the petitioner. It is false that the petitioner went to the office of the O.P. on several occasions and that CESC Limited intentionally harassed the petitioner. It is false that the petitioner for such harassment has suffered loss assessed at Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) or that the petitioner has no other alternative relief. It is denied that the cause of action arose on 26.09.2015 on 28.09.2015 or is still continuing.
That the petitioner has suppressed the material fact about the objection as put forth by his son, Sri Sujit Das who has a separate meter supply at the premises and in view of such objection the shifting job has been held up. Strangely enough the petitioner has not impleaded his son Sri Sujit Das as a party in this case, although he is fully aware about the objection raised by Sri Sujit Das.
In the absence of the said objector, the instant matter cannot be heard effectively and efficacious order can be passed. It is also pertinent to mention that the entire service has to be shifted with all meters connected in circuit and it is not possible to shift any particular meter from the existing meter board. Hence, all consumers of the premises must signify their no objection to the proposed shifting of service and they must also comply with the required formalities as may be prescribed.
The complainant filed affidavit in chief in which he assailed that the property over which the said three electric meters exist is his property and in order to shift the meters from their dangerous present position to a safe place he has applied before the opposite party but no result though there is every chance of loss of life in the event of any fault of those meters and that may cause any accident at any point of time.
The OP filed affidavit in chief which is also the replica of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during passing of final order.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Nemai Chandra Das is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Nemai Chandra Das is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the OP company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout Calcutta and its adjoining districts having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering uninterrupted service in the State capital and its adjoining districts for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The O.P. herein is the District Engineer of CESC having office at Mahesh, P.S.- Srirampur, Dist. - Hooghly of the largest electric supply company throughout territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation and adjacent areas. While providing powers throughout its jurisdiction the said Company always try to cater the need of the consumer.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of two storied building and wherein three domestic electric meters exists beneath the stair case. The main electric meter is standing in the name of the complainant vide consumer no. 66022079003 and the rest two meters are in the name of Sri Sujit Das vide consumer no. 66022079030 and the other meter is standing in the name of Sri Rajib Das vide consumer no. 66022079012. Both Rajib Das & Sujit Das are the sons of the complainant. Complainant wrote an application to the office of the OP for shifting the above mentioned electric meters outside of his residence considering the safety and privacy. After inspection the OP directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,695/- in order to carry out the work as per the application. The complainant deposited the said amount to the office of the OP on 26.05.2014. Since after depositing the money to perform the work the complainant several occasion visited the OP and also wrote a few letters including demand notice of Advocate but of no result. As a result he preferred the recourse of this Forum for getting redressal in the form of direction upon the OP to execute the work and other reliefs. The answering OP by filing written version stated that Sri Sujit Das, son of the Complainant raised an objection against such shifting of meters. So the OP could not effectuate the work. Complainant further assailed that OP failed to perform the work but did not return back the money taken from him. So the OP is deficient in providing service towards its consumer. The answering OP in his written version as well as written argument stated that the person who objected to perform the work is required to be necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. He further assailed that shifting of entire service with all meters cannot be heard effectively in the absence of the objector/ all consumers. Technical difficulty is that it is not possible to shift a single meter from the service position/ meter board on a piecemeal basis and the entire service is required to be shifted to a new common service position and all existing meters will have to be accommodated there. The complainant and other two consumers will all have to draw their wearing installments. Now the dispute is a tripartite dispute among complainant, OP and his son who put objection of shifting meters. It is no doubt that the complainant paid fees as per requirement of the OP and prayed in a proper way to shift the meter. But OP could not do the same due to objection put by one of the consumers. The complainant being a senior citizen always worried regarding the safety and privacy of those meters kept under the stair case. As he is staying at up stair it is difficult for him to come quickly in the down stair while checking the meter or reading the meter for preparation of electric bill. Not only that he could not look after his meter properly as it is in the downstair. So from the above contention of the complainant it is required to install his meter in a suitable place of his portion to avoid his pain and agony. But the OP failed to do the same for which the complainant approached before this Forum. The other son of the complainant namely Rajib Das also consented to the petition of the complainant.
From the above discussion we may come into this conclusion that the complainant tried his best to sift the meter in a suitable place rather than the existing place and followed the procedure of the OP but his aspiration as well as his effort comes into all in vain due to apathetic attitude of the OP. So we may safely conclude that a mere direction to the OP is required for shifting the meter of the complainant in a suitable place in the precincts of the complainant. The objection of a consumer may not curtail the right of other consumer. The OP is at liberty to put the matter before the administration for taking police assistance if there is any apprehension of breach of peace while shifting the meter of the complainant in a suitable place of his own choice.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
In this case the complainant did not file any sketch map to show wherein those meters shall be seeded nor there is any sketch map of the plan sanctioned by the appropriate authority. The complainant only stated in his petition regarding the shifting of the meters from his house to outside his residence as per Para of the petition. He nowhere uttered a single word and he did not file any map to justify his prayer of shifting. The original application which has stated been filed by the complainant to the C.E.S.C. has not come forward before us. Fact is that complainant has deposited some money but complainant did not file quotation sheet by which he was asked to deposit money for shifting his meter without sketch map and without the position of his house, wherein no sanction plan has been filed to justify his figure of the house. As per his case the complainant has one meter and his two sons have submeters having consumer no. in such circumstances wherein the other meters will be placed, there is no mention and sketch map showing those places. The other son did not appear before this Forum stating his allegation or reason. As per OPs case they were not in a position to replace the meter due to resistance. The OP raised allegation in Para 10 that in the entire service has to be shifted with all meters connected in circuit and it is not possible to shift any particular matter from the existing meter board. Accordingly, for want of no objection from other side, OP failed to execute the shifting workings.
We have gone through the records mainly written complaint and W/V and evidence which is nothing but statement on oath vs. oath. Without any sketch map or documental evidence that is sanctioned plan of the premises and without the presence of three meter owners (although submeters have been mentioned) it is not possible for us to pass any effective order of shifting because the complaint is not clear in this respect. Accordingly, the complainant fails to inspire confidence in the mind of the Forum regarding his grievances against the Ops. The case fails miserable for want of sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the compliant case No. 189/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
