Judgment : Dt.7.3.2017

            This is a complaint made by (1) Sova Basak, wife of Sri Niranjan Basak, residing at 14B, Kalu Para Lane, P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata-700 031 and (2) Sk. Yasuddin, son of Sk. Ajet Ali, residing at Bhadua, Payel Para, P.S.- Chanditala, District-Hooghly against (1) OP No.1 Jaya Dutta, (2) OP No.2 Miss Sanchitta Dutta, (3) OP No.3 Tutul Dutta, (4) OP No.4 CESC, praying for a direction upon the OPs to         restore electricity in respect of schedule premises and for paying compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant No.1 is a tenant in respect of a shop room used as Goldsmith at ground floor of premises No.16/2R, Ballygunge Station Road. She used to enjoy electricity. She has started business with Complainant No.2. Suddenly, landlady refused to provide electricity connection and disconnected it. Complainants are consumer of electricity. Complainants informed this fact to Gariahat P.S. Complainants are paying rent. So, Complainants filed this case for a direction upon OPs to restore electric connection.

            OP No.4 CESC filed written version and denied all the allegations of complaint. OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP No.2 & 3 have also filed written version and denied all the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            The Complainants did not file affidavit-in-chief and left taking step after written version was filed.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the record it appears that the Complainants have not filed affidavit-in-chief. The allegation made in the complaint denied in the written version. Copy of the document filed do not prove the allegation of the Complainant made out in complaint petition. There is no document to show that the Complainant applied for electric connection to CESC. Moreover, the reliefs sought is against the individual. The relationship of Complainants with OP No.1 to 3 do not appear to be a relation of consumer and service provider. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Complainants have failed to prove the allegations.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/548/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.