JUDGEMENT

          On study of the complaint it appears that complainant has prayed for relief against the CESC on the ground that complainant prayed for new electric connection for domestic purpose on 27.05.2013 on payment of necessary fees of sum of Rs.200/- for application and thereafter the complainant submitted all the necessary papers as per requirement of the and also documents on 27.05.2013 and CESC accepted it.  But thereafter CESC did not give a new electric connection and in the circumstances complainant has prayed for directing the op to give a new connection and for compensation.

          On the other hand by filing written version op submitted that the premises is 40A/H/3 Abinash Ch. Banerjee Lane, Kolkata – 700010 and no doubt op received such application for 4 KW Domestic load connection on 27.05.2013 at the said address.  But in the said holding there is one connection being Meter No. 4662446 under Consumer No.2705203000 which is in the name of Chittaranjan Chakraborty the father of the complainant and on 27.05.2013 op reported the complainant that it is not possible to supply and provide any further connection when complainant has been enjoying one connection in the said holding along with his father from the same meter and complainant has admitted that he is getting electricity from his father and same is also mentioned in the complaint.  When he has been getting electricity from the meter of his father the question of providing separate connection in his name does not arise in view of the split load factor as per Rule and practically complainant failed to produce any document of his title/right possession of the premises in question as a separate owner and when that document was not produced, the complainant cannot be treated as occupier of the said premises in question and so there is no question of allowing any new connection and said holding stands in the name of his father as owner. So, complainant is not entitled to get any new electric connection about split load factor and matter was informed to the complainant and for which the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and there is no latches on the part of the op.

          So, the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                  Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the entire fact and circumstances and the documents as filed by the complainant it is found that complainant is residing along with his father in the above premises 40A/H/3 Abinash Ch. Banerjee Lane,Kolkata – 700010 and fact remains that complainant was asked to file the document of right title in respect of the said holding.  But anyhow complainant failed to produce any paper to show even before this Forum that he is a separate owner in respect of any part and portion of the holding but it is found that he is a member of the family of his father and there is existing meter in the said holding in the name of his father Chittranjan Chakraborty and in the entire building the electricity is enjoyed by the family members from the said meter of Chittranjan Chakraborty and that fact has not been denied by the complainant.  At the same time complainant before this Forum failed to produce any separate right title and interest over the suit property as separate owner of the said holding or any document to show this property has been partitioned and complainant has got separate portion on the basis of any registered deed.

          In the above situation we have gathered that as per Regulation of the State Electricity Board a member of a family cannot get separate connection if there is already existing meter and on the ground of split load factor and no doubt matter was informed to the complainant and moreover the op already reported that he is deposited Rs.200/- for application shall be returned.

          On careful consideration of the fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that split load factor, complainant is not entitled to get any separate connection in the holding of his father and also complainant is not the owner of the said property but his father is owner and in his father name there is already existing meter and the members of the family of Chittaranjan Chakraborty are enjoying electricity from the main meter of Chittranjan Chakraborty and complainant is son of Chittranjan Chakraborty.  So, complainant is not entitled to get any separate electric connection and no doubt the matter had already been informed to the complainant and even then complainant has filed this complaint which is completely vexatious and for which the present complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the op, but op is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.200/- as per their commitment immediately to the present complainant.