In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.364 / 2011.   

1)                   Sheoji Shukla,

            GR-FR.

            49/5/H/36 Circular Garden Reach Road,

            Kolkat23.                                                                                                          ---------- Complainant

---Versus---                                     

1)                   M/s. CESC Ltd.

            CESC House, Kolkata-1.

2)       District Engineer,  M/s. CESC Ltd.

South West Regional Office,

P-18, Taratala Road, Kolkata-88. P.S. Taratala.                                        ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   15    Dated  16-04-2013.

            The case of the complainant in short is that complainant’s average consumption of electricity is Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month and he regularly paid the same in time. Complainant received a bill for the month of Sept.2011 a sum of Rs.1810/- which is excessive all the previous bills and complainant received the aforesaid disputed bill and went to the o.ps. office requested for further inspection of the aforesaid meter, but o.ps. directed the complainant immediately to pay the aforesaid disputed bill otherwise threatened to disconnect the domestic electric line of complainant.

            Complainant further states that o.p. no.3 residing is another premises and he is employee of CESC Ltd.

            Complainant states that in violation of the Electricity Act, 2003, o.ps. installed a new meter to the complainant’s premises and due to such illegal act by o.ps. the complainant wrote a letter to o.ps. but no action taken till the date of filing the case.

            Complainant states that as per section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 an occupier has right to enjoy electricity but the present case, o.ps. illegally installed new meter to the complainant’s premises which is unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. nos.1 and 2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.