In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No136/2011

1)                   Violet Osta,

W/o Bernad Joseph Osta,

7/H/17, Rai Charan Pal Lane,

P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46                                                                ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   District Engineer, CESC Ltd.

Calcutta Central District,

15/1, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69

2)       Rajkumar Paramanick,

(father’s name not known)

3)       Mrs. Sheela Paramanick

(husband’s name not known).

4)       Mrs. Shyamali Maiti

(husband’s name not known).

All residing at 7/H/17, Rai Charan Pal Lane,

P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46                                                            ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   18    Dated   27/09/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Violet Osta against the o.ps. CESC Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a tenant in respect of 4 rooms at premises no.7/H/17, Rai Charan Pal Lane, P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46 with her familky comprising of husbvand, son, daughter-in-law under the landlady Shyamali Maiti, since last 22 years.  Some time a year ago, it was proposed by o.p. nos.2,3 and 4 to purchase the said premises, but due to poor financial condition of complainant, complainant was unable to purchase the same.

            Subsequently, complainant came to know that o.ps. have no right, title and interest over the same and therefore, the said offer was as a result has rejected by complainant. Complainant take leave to refer to the letter written to the Thika Tenancy Control Board.

            Ops. along with their men and agents resisted by complainant and the men and agents of o.p. no.1 whenever question of electric restoration was in  question. Complainant stated that in spite of receiving the application form, relevant fees and deliberately refusing to supply electricity register in favour of complainant. Complainant several times has called upon o.ps. to supply electricity, but o.p. no.1 is deliberately withholding the matter, the reasons best known to them. Complainant submits that there is no justifiable ground in withholding the claim of complainant to supply the electricity and the willful negligence on the part of o.ps. amounts to deficiency of service within the meaning of Sec 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Hence the case.

            All the o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them. O.p. no.1 submitted in its w/v that complaint was received by CESC on 10.2.11 and on receipt they made an attempt for inspection on 18.3.11 vide their letter dt.10.3.11 but the inspection could not be carried as parties were not present and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt.21.3.11 and due to non receipt of suitable date from the complainant, CESC could not inspect and ld. lawyer of CESC in the course of argument submitted that the instant case has got no basis at all and it is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.4 is owner of the premises and o.p. nos.2 and 3 are tenants and there were as many as 25 meter boxes in the said premises and no space was found by the CESC  men for installation of meter. O.p. nos.2 and 3 could not file any document to show that they are tenants. It is further evident from para 4 of w/v filed by o.p. no.1 that complainant admitted that the o.p. Shyamali Maiti who happens to be the land lady and others threatened her, as such, she was unable to be present at the time of inspection. It is complainant who was asked to remain present at the time of inspection but surprisingly enough, complainant was found absent at the time of inspection after serving due notice by o.p. no.1 CESC and CESC men were there to install meter but no space was available and that apart, CESC men could not inspect at all. In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that there is a civil dispute going on between o.p. no.2 verses o.p. nos.3 and 4 as is apparent from the record. Be that as it may we find that o.p. no.1 did not have any deficiency in service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant  and the complainant does not deserve any relief as per prayer made in the petition of complaint.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint stands dismissed on contest against the o.ps. without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.