COMPLAINT CASE NO. HDF 55 OF 2010
DATE OF FILING : 14-07-2010.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 06-10-2010.
Sri Debasis Singha Roy,
son of Late Sitesh Singha Roy,
residing at 66, G. T. Road ( South ), 4th Floor,
P.S. and District –Howrah COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Smt. Rani Goel,
wife of Late Kamalesh Goel,
resident of holding no. 66, G. T. Road ( South ),
P.S. and District – Howrah.
2. Sri Kailash Kumar Bajaj,
Son of Late Lun Karan Bajaj,
Residing at 66, G.T. Road ( South ),
P.S. and District – Howrah.
3. District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., of 433/1, G.T. Road, P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah, under post office at
Salkia. OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Honble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Honble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
3. Honble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Samir Kumar Das,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party no. 1: Complainant herself
Representative for the opposite party no. 2: Ex parte
Representative for the opposite party no. 3 : Shri Pranab Kumar Biswas,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
Fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a tenant under the landlord Kailash Kumar Bajaj, o.p. no. 2 in respect of one flat comprised at holding no. 66, G.T. Road ( S ), 4th floor, P.S. and District – Howrah. The complainant used to pay separate electric charges for his tenanted premises but the o.p. no. 2 is not supplying electricity and the o.p. no. 1, other tenant of the aforesaid holding is creating nuisance and annoyance upon the complainant unnecessarily. O.p. no. 1 has installed electricity within the said premises in their name and illegally claiming to be a landlady upon the said premises. The complainant requested the o.p. no. 2 to supply the electricity in the schedule mentioned property ( tenanted property ) but the o.p. no. 2 did not pay any attention. Lastly the complainant applied for installation of electric meter to o.p. no. 3 on 19-05—2010 but due to the obstruction of o.p. no. 1 the men and agent of CESC Ltd. are feeling insecure to provide the electricity within the premises and as such necessary order is earnestly required to provide the electricity by o.p. no. 3 for which no obstruction caused by o.ps. no. 1 and 2 and their agents. Hence the application.
O.P. no. 1 and 3 contested the case by filing separate written versions. Though notices upon o.p. no. 2 was properly served but o.p. no. 2 did not appear. So the case was heard ex parte against him.
In her written version o.p. no. 1 stated that she is not at all landlord of the complainant. Moreover, she has never raised any objection or obstruction in installing electricity to the complainant as Smt. Pravabati Ghosh is the actual landlord of the said property. Smt. Pravabati Ghosh has been collecting rent month by month and she has raised objection in installing electricity to the complainant. So the original landlord should be made party in this case. O.p. no. 1 denied that she ever claimed herself as landlady or has ever obstructed in installing the electricity to the complainant. It is asserted by her that she has no objection if the petitioner will get electricity.
In their written version of o.p.. no. 3 they admitted that they received the requisition for supply of electricity from the complainant on 19-05-2010 for 0.6 kw. domestic load in favour of the complainant at no. 66, G.T. Road ( S ), P.S. and District – Howrah. . After receiving the said application the men of CESC Ltd. was deputed on 02-06-2010 and inspection was carried out. On 03-06-2010 an offer letter was sent to the complainant by the CESC Ltd. and the complainant deposited the amount of MASD Bill on 07-06-2010. Thereafter the men and officers of the CESC Ltd. went to install the electric meter in favour of the complainant but due to objection raised at site the men of CESC Ltd. could not do so. This is also admitted by the complainant in his petition. The said incident was informed by the CESC Ltd. in writing. So o.p. no. 3 has not any latches in respect of installation of electric meter in favour of the petitioner nor the CESC Ltd. has any deficiency in service so the present case should be dismissed.
In view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 3, CESC Ltd.
Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986
DECISION WITH REASONS :
POINTS NO. 1 and 2 :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and for brevity.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for separate meter and new electric connection on 19-05-2010 and the inspection was carried out by the CESC Ltd. on 02-06-2010. After that on 03-06-2010 the offer letter was sent to the petitioner by the CESC Ltd. and the complainant deposited the amount of MASD Bill on 07-06-2010. It is also admitted that the men and officers of CESC Ltd. went to install the electric meter in favour of the complainant but due to objection raised at site the same could not be done. The said incident was informed by the CESC Ltd. to the complainant in writing.
As o.p. no. 2, the landlord of the complainant, did not appear in this case we could not know his view. But on the day of final hearing o.p. no. 1 appeared personally and submitted in open Forum that the complainant resides in the said premises as a tenant of o.p. no. 2 for which premises the electric connection was sought. Moreover, she submitted that she has no objection if the complainant will get electricity.
The complainant has submitted an agreement between the o.p. no. 2 and the complainant but the date of agreement is 08-07-2000. In that agreement we have observed that the complainant is a tenant under o.p. no. 2 and the agreement is valid for the period of 15 months from the date of agreement and in that agreement there are signatures o.p. no. 2 and the complainant but there are not any signature of any witness. Moreover, the complainant could not produce any recent rent receipt. Whether he presently occupies the premises in support of that he produced ration card and gas connection. He has produced one voter identity card but the address in the reverse side of the voter identity card is different from the address of the complainant in the petition. And we have observed that the gas connection is in the name of Krishna Sinha Roy, not in the name of the complainant. From the ration card the complainant could not satisfy the Forum whether the complainant currently withdraws ration using that card. Even the complainant did not file any affidavit in support of his present residential proof.
Now turning to the question of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 3 it appears that the men of o.p. no. 3 went for inspection and proper inspection was done also. Accordingly an offer letter was sent mentioning MASD Bill and the CESC also accepted the amount of MASD Bill from the complainant on 07-06-2010. After that the men and officers went to install the electric meter in favour of the complainant but due to the obstruction at the site they could not do the same. It appears that o.p. no. 3 has not refused to provide electric supply to the complainant. But due to physical obstruction raised at the site they could not perform their job. O.p. no. 3 duly informed the matter to the complainant by their letter dated 05-07-2010 and asking the complainant for making arrangement for free access and to inform them a date and time when the access to the meter board position will be made available to enable CESC to proceed further in the matter. Thus the complainant has failed to prove that o.p., CESC Ltd. has committed deficiency in service.
But whether the complainant is entitled to get new electric connection or not, the necessary document is whether the complainant resides at that premises for which the application for electric supply was made. But in the instant case the complainant could not produce any document in support of his present residence and present tenancy of the aforesaid holding.
On scrutiny of the paper and documents filed by the complainant Forum cannot conclude that the complainant occupies that holding at 66. G.T. Road ( S ), 4th Floor, P.S. and District – Howrah.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum holds and concludes that the complainant is not entitled to get any order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result the application fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is dismissed on contest against o.ps. no. 1 and 3 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2 without cost as there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p., CESC Ltd.
Let certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
