Dt. of filing- 15/06/2018
Dt. of Judgement- 10/02/2020
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This complaint is filed by the complainant namely Kali Sankar Ghosh under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties namely (1) District Engineer, (West Suburban Unit) C.E.S.C. Limited (2) Sri Debasish Sinha (3) Officer–In-Charge, Maheshtala Police Station.
Case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a monthly tenant in the ground floor of the premises No. 3A, Shastri Road, Uttar Jagtala Khalpar P. S. – Maheshtala, under OP No.2 on payment of rent of Rs. 1100/- p.m. payable according to the English Calendar month since 20 years. Family of the complainant consists of his ailing mother who is suffering from various ailment and an unmarried sister. Complainant is enjoying the electricity provided by OP No.2 on payment of regular rates of charges but with a view to evict the complainant from the tenanted portion without due recourse of law, OP No.2 is trying all the tricks to deny the complainant from enjoying the electricity and water. OP no.2 also denied access to the meter room for reading meter regarding the monthly consumption of units. Complainant was informed about the possibilities of disconnection of the said meter for want of free-access to the men of CESC/OP No.1 to the meter room. So being compelled, complainant applied before the CESC for supply of electricity by installing a new meter in the existing meter room in the name of the complainant. Subsequently men and agent of the OP No.1 visited the said premises and carried out the inspection but came to a wrong conclusion that the complainant with an intention of splitting load has applied for installation of a new meter to take benefit of lower charges. Complainant made all the endeavours before the OP no.1 for installation of new meter but all in vain. Complainant also has filed a suit for declaration against the OP No.2 before the Ld.6th Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) being T.S. No. 18/2016. Said suit was filed by the complainant before making application to OP No.1 for installation of a new meter.
So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the OP No.1 for installation of a new electric meter in the name of the complainant at the existing meter board as per Electricity Rules and Regulations, to direct the OP No.2 not to create any objection/obstruction at the time of installation of new meter, to direct the OP No.1 to call and seek assistance of OP No.3 at the time of installation of new meter at the existing meter room, to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Complainant has filed with the complaint, copy of letter dated 06.02.2018 sent by OP No. 1 to OP No.2, Copy of the complaint dated 09.04.2018 filed by the mother and sister of the complainant before the Officer –In-Charge, Police Station – Maheshtala, copy of the application made by the complainant for installation of new meter and the copy of the letter dated 09.04.2018 sent by the OP No.1 and the copy of the letter dated 12.04.2018 sent by the complainant.
OP No. 1 contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint. It is specifically contended that the complainant applied for a domestic meter for 0.66 KW domestic load at the existing meter room at Premises no.3, Sashtri Road, Uttar Jagtala Khalpar, but when the inspection was carried out on 09.04.2018 it was observed that the said premises is a two storied old building provided with supply of electricity through four separate meter standing in the name of Debasish Sinha and other three person. So, as the complainant was getting supply of electricity through the meter standing in the name of Debasish Sinha, the application of the complainant for new meter was regretted on the ground of split load and accordingly the complainant was informed. So, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice, no step was taken by OP No.2, so the case proceeded exparte against him.
During the course of the trial , complainant filed affidavit in chief. No questionnaire was filed by the OP No.1. However, affidavit in chief was also filed by OP No.1 but no questionnaire was filed by the complainant and accordingly a petition was filed to that effect praying to fix the date for argument. So, ultimately, argument has been advanced on behalf of the complainant and on behalf of the OP No.1.
Following points require determination :-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken-up together for a comprehensive discussions. It is claimed by the complainant that he is a monthly tenant in the ground floor of the premises no. 3A, Sashtri Road, under OP No.2 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1100/- since last 20 years. This fact has not been disputed and denied because OP No.2 being the Landlord has not appeared in spite of service of notice upon him. Apart from this, complainant is an occupier in the said premises is also apparent from the letter sent by the OP No. 1 dated 09.04.2018. Complainant has also filed a copy of the complaint lodged before the Mahestala Police Station wherein it has been stated by the mother and sister of the complainant that they have been residing in the said premises since more than 20 years, as tenants. So , from these documents it is evident that the complainant is an occupier in the said premises in the ground floor. The only contention which has been raised by the OP No.1 is that the complainant is enjoying the electricity through the meter standing in the name of Debasish Sinha i.e. OP No.2 but from the document filed by the complainant especially the letter sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 dated 06.02.2018, it is categorically stated that they were unable to raise monthly energy bills on the basis of actual reading as the men of OP No.1 were not getting free access. So supply of the electricity will be disconnected. So, the said letter supports the claim of the complainant that the OP No.2 is denying the access of the OP No.1 only with an intention that the electricity supplied to the complainant is disconnected and he is compelled to vacate the premises. Claim of the complainant that he has applied for installation of separate electric meter in his name in the existing meter room, has not been disputed and denied by OP No.1. However, according to the OP No.1 since there is already an electric meter in the name of OP No.2, application for separate meter has been filed by the complainant only for the purpose of splitting the load. But in this context, it may be mentioned here that the own letter sent by the OP No.1 referred to above dated 06.02.2018 contradicts the version of the OP No.1 that the complainant has applied for a separate electric meter only to split the load. It is evident from the letter dated 06.02. 2018 that OP No.2 is making all efforts to prevent the complainant from enjoying the electricity as there is apprehension that the same may be disconnected by OP no.1 due to non-getting free-access to the meter room. Section 43 of the Electricity Act , 2003 casts an obligation upon the distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and sub-section - 1 of Section 43 of the said Act enjoins upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises as the case may be, within one month of receiving of the application requiring such supply. As it is already discussed above that the complainant is an occupier in his capacity as a tenant, he is entitled to the supply of electricity in his tenanted portion, in view of the provision as referred to above under Electricity Act especially as electricity is an essential commodity for human survival. In such view of the matter, complainant is entitled to the installation of electric meter as claimed by him. However, since there has not been any cause of action against OP No3, case is liable to be dismissed against OP No.3.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/ 346/2018 is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and exparte against OP No.2. It is dismissed exparte against OP No.3. OP No.1 is directed to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant at the existing meter room at the premises being no. 3A, Sashtri Road, Uttar Jagtala Khalpar, P. S. Maheshtala as per Electricity Rules and Regulations, within 20 days from the date of this order. OP No.2 is directed not to obstruct or disturb the men of OP No.1 at the time of installation of new electric meter for the tenanted portion of the complainant.
