Judgment : Dt.22.2.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Ramkhilaban Paswan, son of Late Bishnu Paswan, 63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S.-Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033 against (1) Sri Tarak Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, 63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S.- Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033, OP No.1 and (2) The District Engineer, CESC Ltd., South West Region, P-18, Taratala Road, P.S.-Taratala, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.2, praying for direction upon the OP No.1 not to raise any objection and create disturbance in installation of the new meter at the shop room at premises No.63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S.-Charu Market and direction upon the OP No.2 to install the new meter in the name of the Complainant in the room at premises No.63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S.-Charu Market and direction upon the OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant is an employee of CTC, LMT and he was inducted a lawful tenant in respect of one room situated at 63A, Tollygunge Road, Charu Market with common bath and privy by the father of the OP No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.545/-. Further, Complainant has stated that suddenly OP No.1 illegally claimed Rs.845/- as rent of the premises and refused to take rent for the month of March, 2016. Complainant sent the rent by money order. Thereafter, the Complainant used to deposit the rent before the Ld. Rent Controller. The Complainant used to get the electric supply from the OP. Thereafter, the electric connection was disconnected. Complainant applied OP No.2 for supply of new meter. OP No.1 being resourceful, got information that OP No.2 is going to install a new meter in the name of the Complainant and made disturbance in supply of electric connection in the premises. OP No.2 could not install the meter due to disturbance created by OP No.1. So, Complainant filed this case.

            CESC filed written version and denied the allegation of the complaint. Further, CESC has stated if this Forum directs, OP No.2 is ready to install the electric meter at the premises. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

            OP No.1 has, further, stated that the Complainant used to enjoy electricity through electric meter providing for his tenanted accommodation. Complainant suddenly stopped payment of rent for the five months of his tenanted portion, but enjoyed electricity from the said meter. Other tenants increased their rent after consulting with the OP No.1. But the Complainant did not do this. Complainant, on his own, is depositing rent before Rent Controller instead of making payment of rent which is inclusive of electricity. So, this OP has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief stating that he is filing this affidavit stating that he is defendant before this Consumer Forum. Against this OP No.1 has put questionnaire to which Complainant has not filed any affidavit-in-reply. OP CESC has filed evidence wherein this OP has denied the allegation. OP No.1 has also filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has averted the facts mentioned in the written version submitted by him to which Complainant has put questionnaire to which OP No.1 has filed reply.

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

            First prayer of the Complainant is for a direction upon the OP No.1 was that OP No.1 may not raise any objection and creating disturbance for installation of the new meter. In this regard, it appears that Complainant has stated that OP No.1 made obstruction. But, there is no specific allegation or averment as to how and when OP No.1 made obstruction to the people of OP No.2 who went for installation. Accordingly, this Forum cannot pass order which is infructuous in nature and which cannot be executed.

            Second prayer for Complainant for installation of the electric meter at the premises. In this regard, in the form of document, it appears that a Xerox copy of the letter issued by CESC is filed wherein Complainant was requested to remain present. However, what happened afterwards is not coming from the record.

            As such, we are of the view that the prayers made by the Complainant cannot be allowed.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/264/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.