DATE OF FILING : 04-01-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 19-02-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23-04-2013.
Sukanta Mondal,
son of late Sudhamoy Mondal,
of village & p.o.Sarenga, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Sri Manoj Kumar Mondal,
son of Sri Abani Bhusan Mondal,
of village & P.O. Sarenga, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah, and also residing at Sankrail Bharat
Co-operative Society, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah.
District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),
Howrah – 1. --------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Dissecting the complaint it is collected that the present consumer dispute filed
by Sri Sukanta Mondal s/o. late Sudhamoy Mondal for redressal to change the name of the consumer in connection with the consumer no. 70061026001 from the name of O.P. no. 1 ( herein Monoj Kumar Mondal ) together with compensation and litigation cost as the O.P. no. 2 in spite of several correspondences made through verbally / written objection by the complainant, did not rake any positive action to mitigate the grievances.
Facts reveal that the complainant Shri Sukuanta Mondal applied before the
O.P. no. 2 for domestic electric connection in his residential house having its R.S. Dag No. 5196, L.R. Dag No. 1095 in Mouza Sarenga and the O.P. no. 2 effected the electric connection after receiving Rs. 6625/- being the service connection charges and security deposit money amd the complainant enjoying the electricity under consumer no. 7006126001 and paid electricity bill in his own name. But all on a sudden the complainant received the electric bill for the month of Feb’12 and Mar’12 in the name of O.P. no. 1 ( herein Monoj Kumar Mondal ) and accordingly he made contact with O.P. no. 2 i.e. CESC Authority, the facts leaving behind for changing his name against consumer number as cited above but the O.P. no. 2 did not take any proper action for which he lodged this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) against the O.P. no; 2 and necessary relief as prayed stated above.
3. To counter act the complainant‘s claim and alleged story the O.P. no. 1 filing a written version has asserted that the complainant has no legal right to sue as consumer and Shri Sukanta Mondal was also not consumer of the O.P. no. 2 as he sold the said property through registered deed and he never hired any service from the O.P. no. 2 at the present juncture for which the case is to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P. no. 3 o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the change of
the tenancy made in favour of O.P. no. 1 against application of O.P. no. 1 ( herein Monoj Kr. Mondal ) after duly verified the registered deed dated 24-05-2012 registered with the office of the A.D.S.R., Howrah, in favour of O.P. no. 1 with an undertaking that if any problem arises about transfer the ownership of the meter then the CESC Authority is at liberty to reallocate the same. This answering O.P. no. 2 further stated that the CESC Authority is ready to transfer the ownership of the meter in favour of petitioner if proper direction is received from the court of law.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 2 ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. On proper scrutiny of the argument as advanced by the agents of both parties and also reviewing the material documents as filed by the parties brief of the details of the complaint and also written version we have searched out some of the anomalies as per complaint which are to be decided in this case to arrive at just conclusion.
i ) Nodoubt it is admitted facts that Sri Susanta Kumar Mondal is a bonafide consumer of CESC Ltd. since 2001 having deposited service connection charges and security money and executed an agreement with the licensee and paid the electric bill regularly.
And as per Company’s Rule security money cannot be made transferrable
to the other occupier if so happen.
The O.P. no. 2 allowed O.P. no. 1 to transfer the name ( herein change of
tenancy) without the written consent / no objection of the existing consumer and the company allowed interest as per bank’s norms over the security deposit and credited / adjusted in the current bill / subsequent bills of the existing consumers ( socalled consumer Sri Susanta Kr. Mondal ) and it is undisputed matter rather admitted by the O.P. no. 2.
As per present status of the property where electricity had been provided a
civil suit is pending where Hon’ble Civil Judge ( Sr. Division ) 3rd Court, Howrah, vide his order dated 16-07-2012 which runs as under :
“Both the plaintiff ( herein complainant ) and the defendant are directed to maintain the statusquo in respect of nature, character and possession over the suit property and the defendant ( herein O.P. no. 1 specially ) are restrained from giving any effect over to the sale deed dated 24-05-2010 and further not the possession over the suit property.
In the light of the above findings and decision arrived at we are of the view that the
complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law as elaborated his demand requires to be fulfilled.
In view of the above facts and findings we are inclined to hold that the present
complaint succeeds in part with condition.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 2 of 2013 ( HDF 2 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 1.
The O.P. 2 be directed to reimpose the name of the complainant i.e. Shri Sukanta Kr. Mondal as a bonafide consumer having consumer no. 7006126001 ( existing ) having confirmed the existence of his ( complainant ) at the present schedule premises to be certified by the local councilor and raised the electric bill time to time till final disposal of pending civil suit as stated above without any ambiguity within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. 2 do also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainant.
The complainant is also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
