Dt. of filing 11/05/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 23/04/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainants namely 1) Mr. Tapash Kumar Nath 2) Mr. Manas Kumar Nath and 3) Smt. Swarnamoyee Nath under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) District Engineer, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation 2) The Senior Executive Engineer (Commercial), Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation and 3) Mr. Tanmoy Mishra, Accounts Manager, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation alleging deficiency in rendering service on their part.
Complainant’s case in brief is that father of the Complainant’s No.1 & 2 and the husband of Complainant No.3 namely Bisweswar Nath was enjoying electricity from the electric meter bearing no.284269301 and Consumer no.05080087000 by paying the electric charges. Said Bisweswar Nath died on 5/6/2012 and after his demise the present Complainants decided to surrender said electric meter. So they applied before the Opposite Parties for disconnection of the electric meter and after being satisfied the electric line in the said meter was disconnected. Thereafter a trespasser attempted to take connection in the said meter and on hearing the same Complainant requested the Opposite Party not to reconnect the electric line in the said meter. But despite several request Opposite Parties have suddenly reconnected the electric connection in the said electric meter in the name of the dead person namely Bisweswar Nath. The said trespasser enjoyed electricity illegally and arbitrarily. Notice was sent by the Complainants through their Ld. Advocate to the Opposite Party No.1 requesting to disconnect the electric meter in the name of the dead person but all in vain. Due to said illegal enjoyment by trespasser Complainants have sustained severe loss as the consumption charges of the said electric meter shall be in the account of the Complainants. So the present case has been filed by the Complainants praying for directing Opposite Parties to disconnect the electric connection in the schedule meter, to remove the said electric meter from the meter room of the schedule premises of the Complainants, to refund the money deposited as security in respect of the said electric meter and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- .
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, photocopy of the electric bill, death certificate of Bisweswar Nath, written complaints made by the Complainant, notice sent through their Ld. Advocate, legal heirs affidavit and copy of the voter ID Card.
Case has been contested by the Opposite Parties by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint petition contending inter alia that on receiving a letter dated 2/1/2018 from the Complainant No.1 for voluntary disconnection of supply standing in the name of his father late Bisweswar Nath, Opposite Party disconnected the supply in the said meter in good faith. But after disconnection they received objection dated 15/1/2018 from one Smt. Snigdha Mitra stating that she was the beneficiary of the disconnected meter standing in the name of Bisweswar Nath and runs a beauty parlour. She moved before the Hon’ble High Court for restoration of the said electric meter standing in the name of Bisweswar Nath. Since the said Snigdha Mitra/writ petitioner was the beneficiary of electric supply from the meter standing in the name of Bisweswar Nath, Opposite Parties restored supply on 3/2/2018 by reconnecting the meter. Opposite Party can transfer the supply in favour of the Snigdha Mitra after necessary compliance as per Electricity Act and Regulation. So the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
During the course of evidence both the parties have adduced their evidence by filing respective affidavit-in-chief followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately argument has been advanced by both the parties. Complainant has also filed brief notes of argument.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both these points are taken up for comprehensive discussions in order to avoid repetition.
Admittedly the subject meter as described in the schedule of the complaint petition stayed in the name of Bisweswar Nath who is the father of Complainant No.1 & 2 and the husband of the Complainant No.3. The said Bisweswar Nath who was the consumer of electricity from the said meter died intestate on 5/6/2012. It is also admitted fact that after his death on the written complaint of the Complainants on 3/11/2017 supply of electricity in the said meter was disconnected by the Opposite Parties. But it has been re-connected by the Opposite Party on the prayer of one Smt. Snigdha Mitra. This is also not in dispute that the said Snigdha Mitra had moved before the Hon’ble High Court for restoration of electricity on the ground that she was the beneficiary and was running Beauty Parlour in the premises. Even though the copy of the writ petition filed by said Snigdha Mitra before the Hon’ble High Court has not been filed before this Forum, but copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 13/2/2018 has been filed wherefrom it appears that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the application has been rendered infractuous as the connection had been given to the petitioner (said Snigdha Mitra).
So it is apparent that the said Snigdha Mitra is an occupant in the premises. She is either a tenant or a permissive occupier or a trespasser as claimed by the Complainants. Be that as it may, there cannot be any denial or dispute that the said Snigdha Mitra being an occupant was enjoying the electricity from the said electric meter which has been requested by the Complainant to disconnect. In such a situation said Snigdha Mitra becomes a necessary party because she can only say about her status whether she is occupying as tenant or a trespasser. But for the reason best known to the Complainant said Snigdha Mitra has not been made as a party in this case. So as this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, on this score the relief as sought for cannot be allowed. So as the complaint in the present form is not maintainable, it is liable to be dismissed.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/250/2018 is dismissed on contest.
