This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP-1, 2 and 3 as the said OPs did not bother to re-shift the electric meter of the Complainant from its present place to the earlier place till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is residing at his ancestral property since long i.e. during life time of his father, since deceased, namely Paresh Chandra Das. After demise of his father the Complainant, his brother Debasis Das and one elder sister became the legal heirs of the said building, but the sister is not in physical possession. The Complainant and the OP-4 are at present in possession of the said property and they are the joint owners of the said two-storied building, where the ground floor is under the possession and occupation of the OP-4, but the verandah (ground floor) is for common use. There was two electric meters bearing no-10475893, Consumer no-50065148009 in the name Paresh Chandra Das and another is in the name of Prasun Das, the present Complainant. The Complainants and his brother were enjoying the two meter peacefully. The OP-4 used to enjoy the electric meter lying in the name of his father, since deceased. Both meters were installed at the verandah on the ground floor where the OP-4 is residing. The Complainant has stated that the OP-4 in collusion with the OP-1, 2 and 3 forcibly and illegally shifted the electric meter from the original place (verandah) and installed outside wall of the boundary premises under the open sky and light even without any protection, for which the meter of the Complainant got damages day by day due to rain water resulting chance of danger of life at any point of time especially in the season of Monsoon by short circuit. The said meter box is under the lock and key by the OP-4 and all these things have been done without taking any consent of the Complainant. The shifting order was duly passed by the OP-1, 2 and 3 on the basis of fake application filed by the OP-4 after forging the signature of the Complainant. During shifting of the meters from its original place to another place the wife of the Complainant had raised vehement objection and due to this reason she was assaulted by the OP-4 along with others and due to this reason the wife of the Complainant got injury and even the personnel of the OP-2 and 3 did not bother to rescue her from the hands of the miscreants of the OP-4. One criminal case was started being no.-301/2011, Baranagar Police Station and charge sheet was also submitted by the concerned police authority and at present the matter is sub-judice before the competent Court of Law. Due to illegal and forcible shifting of the meters the Complainant has lost his right to use the verandah, being a common place. As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the OP-2 called the Complainant and the OP-4nat their office regarding hearing of the illegal shifting of the electric meter of the Complainant and during hearing the Electric Authority had placed the original application of shifting as well as NOC of the Complainant which was submitted by the OP-4, but the same was without any knowledge and consent of the Complainant and according to the Complainant his signature was forged by the OP-4 herein. As and when the Complainant got knowledge that forging his signature the OP-4 has submitted the application before the CESC for shifting of the meter, then and there without any delay the Complainant lodged a complaint before Baranagar Police Station and Police had accordingly started case being no-327/2014 u/S 420, 466, 467, 411, 120B and 34 IPC and during investigation the police authority had seized those forged documents from CESC Limited and verified through hand writing experts and thereafter the police authority submitted charge sheet against the OP-4 and Inspector of the OP-2 and 3. The OP-2 and 3 have damaged the premises by illegal shifting of the meter and outsted the Complainant from his physical possession and the OP-4 converted the verandah into a covered verandah by an addition and alteration of the said premises illegally for his personal purpose and without consent and discussion with the Complainant being the co-sharer and now the meter is in open space and becoming damage by rain water and sunlight and at any moment there is a chance of short circuit in the electric line and meter. As the grievance of the complainant have not been redressed by the OP-1, 2 and 3 hence by filing this complaint the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the said OPs to re-shift the electric meter of the Complainant from its present place to the earlier place where it was shifted, restrain the OP-4 so that he cannot create any obstruction or interference during re-shifting of the meter, direct the concerned police authority to render necessary help, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to him due to mental, physical harassment, damage, monetary loss along with other reliefs.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-1, 2 and 3 by filing conjoint written version contending that on 29.03.2011 the OP-4 had applied for a new domestic meter having load of 0.50 KW in his favour and shifting of the old meter. On 08.04.2011 the OPs have carried out an inspection and it was transpired that the OP-4 wanted shifting of the old meter with a new look meter after removing the old meter standing in the name of his deceased father. On 08.04.2011 the OPs issued offer letter to the OP-4 and the OP-4 had complied with all the formalities including payment of MASD bill and also submitted the consent application of the Complainant, wherein consent was given by the Complainant and the OP-4 for shifting of the meter from the existing place to another place. On 11.05.2011 the OPs have taken steps to carry out the job, but could not do the same due to resistance and strong objection at the site by the Complainant. On 18.05.2011 the OP-4 had obtained an order from the Court of Ld. Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in connection with M.P. No.-1578/2011 whereby the ld. Court was pleased to direct not to raise any disturbance at the time of shifting work. It was also mentioned that the CESC will do their works at the site without hampering the joint possession of the joint owners and the I.C. Baranagar was directed to file a report to that effect. Pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2011 by the said Court, he CESC had shifted the meter of the Complainant and installed a new meter in the name of the OP-4 on 13.06.2011 and disconnected and removed the meter which was in the name of the deceased father of the OP-4. Challenging the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore the Complainant filed a Criminal motion being no-192/2011 before the Additional District Session Judge, Barrackpore against the OP-4 and the CESC for setting aside the shifting order and to restore the meter of the Complainant at the previous place. The criminal motion was dropped. Thereafter the Complainant filed another case CRR no.-83/2012 along with CRNW no. -43/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court. Again praying for shifting his meter the Complainant has filed a complaint case on 02.07.2011 being no-1590/2011 before the Ld. CJM, Barasat against the OP-4, Smt. Sudipa Das and Mr. Indrajit Basu, the then District Engineer of the northern District and Mr. Goutam Saha, Inspector of the Northern District. An FIR was lodged on 17.07.2011. In the month of May, 2012 the Complainant has filed a Writ Petition vide no-WP 9935 (W)/2012 before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta with a prayer to shift his meter at the earlier position. On 05.06.2012 the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Justice Mr. Debasis Kar Gupta directing the Company to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 02 months from the date of the said order after hearing the both parties. In compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court The District Engineer heard both parties and agreed to re-shift the meter to a common position near the stair case since the both parties to that case are agreed and at the cost of the Writ Petitioner. Immediate inspection may be carried out on the basis of formal application filed by the Writ Petitioner in this regard and after compliance with the formalities and payment of charge for shifting of the meter board along with the meter at a common place of the Complainant and the OP-4. The District Engineer of the CESC Limited directed the Company to forward an application to the Complainant for the purpose of communication of the reasoned order dated 20.04.2013 and the Complainant received the same on 23.04.2013. On 23.05.2013 the CESC Limited sent a letter along with the specified format to the OP-4 for compliance of the reasoned order dated 19.04.2013. Instead of sending the application format to the Complainant for necessary compliance the CESC had sent the same to the OP-4, but the OP-4 did not submit the filled up application format for shifting of the suit meter in the common position near the stair case. On 15.05.2014 an FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Baranagar whereby Mr. Goutam Kumar Saha, Inspector of the Northern District was made one of the accused. On 24.05.2014 the CESC Limited had received a letter from Sri Tarit Kumar Ganguly, ASI, Baranagar Police Station for furnishing the seizure documents in original, enquiry report regarding shifting of the meter, NOC dated 20.04.2011 etc. Accordingly the CESC Limited had remitted the entire documents and papers to the concerned person, who sought for. At present the meter is located at a common place which is easily accessible by both the parties to this case. According to the Complainant if the meter will be shifted at the place as per the will of the Complainant, then only the Complainant will pay the necessary shifting charges. The OPs have submitted that there is dispute by and between the Complainant and the OP-4, wherein there is no role of these OPs. The OPs have done the work as per the application made by the OP-4 and approved by the Complainant upon receipt of the necessary shifting charges. The allegation against these OPs as made by the Complainant is false, frivolous and malafide, hence according to the OP-1, 2 and 3 this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-4 by filing written version contending that the Complainant is the elder brother of the OP-4 and the OP-4 has already filed a Partition Suit being Title Suit no-439/2012 against the Complainant before the Ld. 1st Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat. In the said Title Suit the Complainant has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC on 31.05.2018, on the self same ground and same parties stated in this complaint case. The OP-4 has denied that this OP in collusion with the employee of the OP-1, 2 and 3 forcibly and illegally shifted the electric meter from the original place (Verandah) and installed outside wall of the boundary premises under open sky and light. The OP-4 has further denied the wild allegation of the Complainant regarding forging of the signature of the Complainant by him. The OP-4 has denied the entire allegations as made out in the petition of complaint by the Complainant. According to the OP-4 the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost having no merit at all.
The Complainant, the OP-1, 2 and 3 and the OP-4 have adduced evidence on affidavit respectively and the Complainant has cross-examined the OP-1, 2 and 3 and the OP-4 respectively by way of questionnaire and they have replied the same accordingly on affidavit. Similarly the Complainant was cross-examined by the OP-1, 2 and 3 and the OP-4 by way of questionnaire and the Complainant has replied the same on affidavit. The parties have filed their Brief Notes of Argument.]
We have carefully perused the entire record; documents as available in the record and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that in the questioned premises there were two meters, out of which one is in the name of the Complainant and other was in the name of the deceased father of the Complainant and the OP-4. The Complainant is the elder son and the OP-4 is the younger son of the said deceased namely Paresh Chandra Das. The said two meters were installed at the verandah of the said premises situated on the ground floor. By mutual arrangement the two brothers are occupying two floors. The Complainant is occupying the first floor and the OP-4 the ground floor. The verandah where the meter board was originally situated was subsequently converted to a study room by the OP-4 and for this reason the OP-4 had requested the OP-1, 2 and 3 for shifting of the meter from the verandah to a common place having safety and security. It is pertinent to mention that the said property has not yet been divided to the legal heirs of the deceased and one partition suit has been filed, which is still pending before the competent Court of Law.
The OP-4 for decided to surrender the meter of his deceased father and to take new electric connection in his name in the said premises and accordingly made application in the prescribed format. After inspection by the CESC person the OP-4 had duly depositing the requisite charges for installation of new electric connection in his name. As the OP-4 wanted to convert the said verandah to a study room, hence he also applied for shifting of the meter board there from to a common, safety and secured position. For shifting of the meters the OP-4 had also paid requisite charges along with No Objection Certificate from the other co-owner of the said premises i.e. his elder brother-Complainant. In the said certificate the Complainant also put his signature stating that regarding shifting of the meter board from verandah has no objection. Accordingly the CESC personnel had shifted the meter of the Complainant from there, removed the meter, which was lying in the name of their deceased father and installed new meter and electric connection in the sole name of the OP-4. The two meters were installed on the wall of the boundary as per the discretion of the CESC. In this respect we are to say that the meters are the property of the CESC and the CESC is the one and only authority who will decide as to where the meter can be installed in view of the Electricity Act. It is the duty of the CESC to install meter at a complete hazardless place and which is the most safety and secured area. Regarding place of installation the opinion of the CESC/Electric Department is the final, but the said Department has no authority to curtail the legal right of their consumers in any manner.
However, after shifting of the meters the Complainant has filed several cases before several Courts praying for re-shifting of his meter at the earlier place. In the Writ Petition the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta was pleased to direct the CESC to resolve the dispute by and between the parties by passing one reasoned order upon hearing from the both parties. In compliance with the said direction of the Hon’ble High Court the CESC directed the parties to appear on the schedule date and time and upon hearing from the both sides it was decided by the CESC based on the fresh representation dated 16.04.2013/19.04.2013 dispose of the matter by holding that since the both the parties agreed to re-shift the meters to a common position i.e. near the stair case at the cost of the complainant, immediate inspection may be carried out on the basis of a formal application to be filed by the complainant-Writ Petitioner in this regard and upon compliance of formalities and payment of charges the meter board position may be re-shifted to the new common position where both the meters of the complainant and OP 4 will be installed. The District Engineer, Northern District directed the CESC to forward an application to the complainant immediately for the purpose accordingly the District Engineer, Northern District disposed of the representation of the complainant-Writ Petitioner as directed by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 05.06.2012.
In spite of the above mentioned disposal the complainant did not bother to comply with the above mentioned order after submitting the application form along with requisite charges for re-shifting of the meter, hence in view of violation of the said order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the District Engineer, Northern District as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the OP 1, 2 and 3 could not take any step to re-shift the meters at the common place.
During argument as well as the pleasing the complainant has submitted he did never issued any consent letter to the CESC for shifting of his meter from verandah to the existing place, and in the consent letter submitted by the OP 4 the signature of this complainant was forged. In this respect we are to say that the questioned signature of the complainant was sent to the Questioned Document Examination Bureau, Government of West Bengal, CID, Bhabani Bhaban (3rd Floor), Alipore, Kolkata – 700027 and the examiner of the questioned documents, QDEB, CID, West Bengal has given his opinion, fromwhere it is evident that it was not possible for him to come to a conclusive conclusion after examining the questioned signature and in this regard further examination and opinion is necessary.
Therefore, the allegation of the complainant regarding forging his signature cannot be proved by the concerned department and therefore at this juncture the allegation of the forging signature does not stand at all.
In the cross examination the complainant put questionnaire to the OP – 1 to 3 that ‘is there any application filed by the complainant regarding shifting his electric meter from ground floor verandah to elsewhere?’ (Q-2) in reply of the question no. 2 the OP 1, 2 and 3 have submitted reply on affidavit stating that the OP 4 filed such application, not the complainant, before the OP 1 to 3 – CESC Ltd. for shifting of the meter together with NOC Letter to that effect signed by the present complainant.
Therefore, from the cross examination it is also clear to us though the application was made by the OP 4 for shifting of the meter from verandah to elsewhere, in such shifting written consent was given by the complainant. So, as the complainant as well as the OP 4 gave their respective consent to the CESC Ltd. for shifting of the meter and as the CESC Ltd. have done the said work in a proper manner without any delay, we are not in a position to find any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice in respect of OP 1 to 3. In the prayer portion of the complaint petition relief has been sought for in respect of OP 1, 2, 3, not regarding OP 4. Prayer has been made by the complainant for giving direction to the OP 1 to 3 for re-shifting of his electric meter from the existing place to the previous place hence the relief has sought for by the complainant has no legs to stand upon.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint Being No. RBT/CC/137/2019 is hereby dismissed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.
Dictated and corrected by
[HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder]
MEMBER
