S. Majumder, Member

The complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPS praying for compensation of Rs.49,50,000/- and restoration the electric line of him after proper checking and verification of the existing electric meter as to its satisfactory workability alternatively restoration of the electric connection replacing the existing meter with a new one at his premises.

After entering appearance the OPs filed a petition on 11.12.2008 being no- MA-119/2008, challenging the maintainability of the complaint. Thereafter the Complainant filed a petition on 15.12.2008 being no-122/2008, u/s 13 (3) (B) of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an interim order regarding early restoration of his electric connection on temporary basis at his premises in question. We took up the above-mentioned two petitions for hearing and their disposal.

The OPs have stated in their petition that the Complaint has been filed against two officers of the Company but settled principle is that under the law any case can be filed only by the Company or against the Company. The officers of the Company cannot be sued for the alleged laches on the part of the  Company.  It has been stated by the OPs that the Complainant has no authority to file such case for any kind of alleged deficiencies arising out of a connection in the name of his father. The said connection has been disconnected by the OPs on 28.08.2008 due to non-payment of electric bills and the Complainant without making any payment of the regular bills served a notice upon the Company for huge compensation and stated that the Company would pay the compensation to the complainant and the monthly outstanding dues would be adjusted against such amount of compensation after being paid. It has been further contended by the OPs that the Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.49,50,000/- towards compensation from the OPs, but no explanation has been given within the four corners of the complaint. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that as the present Complainant is not a registered consumer under the WBSEDCL, he has no locus-standi to file this case and after the death of his father, registered consumer, the Complainant has failed to take any step for changing the name. According to the OPS the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law, which is liable to be dismissed and OPs have prayed for allowing the Misc Application no-119/2008.

On careful consideration of the record and hearing submission from both the parties we have noticed that it is true that the present Complainant is not a registered consumer under the WBSEDCL. His father, since deceased was a registered and bonafide consumer under the WBSEDCL. It has no been disclosed by the Complainant that when his father died. Filing the petition the Complainant has prayed for temporary electric connection in the meter lies in the name of his deceased father. The contention of the OPs in this respect is that they are unable to restore temporary electric connection in the meter lies in the name of a deceased person. The further allegation of the Complainant is that being a beneficiary of the deceased consumer he filed an application after the death of his father for changing the name but the WBSEDCL has failed to take any step in that context. But the Complainant has failed to adduce any document in support of his contention. Therefore it has been cleared that the Complainant did not apply for substitution of his name after the death of the father. Moreover, the Complainant claims himself as beneficiary, but we do not know whether there is/are any other legal heir/s of the deceased or not and the Complainant has not disclosed this in the complaint as well as in his petition. In the context of providing temporary electric connection the Ld. Counsel for the OPs has submitted that there is specific provision in the Regulation of WBERC. The OPs filed the Notification no-23/WBERC, dated 18.10.2005 published in ‘The Kolkata Gazette’ on 19.10.2005, it is evident from the said Regulation that there is specific provision of making an Application to the WBSEDCL for getting temporary electric connection and as per the said Regulation the applicant has to apply in the specific format before the Company and he is lalso liable to comply with the all formalities as per the Regulation before getting temporary election connection. But in the case in hand the Complainant did not make any application before the Company and has not complied with the formalities as prescribed by the WBERC. Therefore he is not entitled to get any temporary electric connection.

We have noticed that the present Complainant used to enjoy electric connection through the meter which is lying in the name of his deceased father. But due to non-payment of regular electric bills the said connection has been disconnected by the OPs. In our opinion such disconnection cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as they acted as per their own Act. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that as per his prayer his name has been substituted by the OPs, but he has failed to show us any electric bill in his name and also failed to satisfy us that he made application for substitution of his name before the WBSEDCL. The Complainant was asked by us to tell his consumer number; in that respect also he could not make any satisfactory reply. It is true that being a beneficiary he is entitled to enjoy the electric connection of his deceased father, but in that case he has to make substitution application before the OPs. As the contract was signed by, between the OPs and his deceased father, and at present there is no contractual agreement by and between the Complainant and the OPs. There is no provision in the Act of the WBSEDCL that they are bound to give connection in the meter lying in the name of a deceased consumer. During hearing the Complainant has submitted that he is willing to get temporary electric connection at any cost of payment. In this regard we are of the opinion that the Complainant may get temporary electric connection subject to compliance of all the formalities as prescribed in the Regulation of WBERC, but he is not entitled to get the said connection in the meter lying in the name of his deceased father. He has to apply before the WBSEDCL for changing the name of his deceased father. In this context we may mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, in the case no-W.P 16112 (W) 2006, wherein the Hon’ble Justice G.C. Gupta has held that in case getting electric connection in the meter lying in the name of the deceased father, the son being a beneficiary has to apply for substitution of the name in the prescribed form and upon compliance of all the necessary formalities including deposit of entire outstanding dues, if any. After completion the WBSEDCL is liable to provide electric connection.

Going by the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and we are accordingly inclined to allow the maintainability petition filed by the OPs. The petition filed by the Complainant u/s 13 (3) B is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The complaint not being maintainable is liable to be dismissed on contest without any cost. With the above observation the complaint be disposed of accordingly. The office is directed to send the copy of this judgment upon the recorded Advocates of both the sides forthwith free of cost.