DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been directed against order dated 29.05.2015 in CC No. 455/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, (for short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP No. 2 thereof has preferred this appeal.
The case of the Complainant is that he applied for a new electric service connection in his name before the OP No. 1. But it was resisted on 25.04.2014 at about 10.30 hours by some persons of the domestic premises of the Complainant, being registered by G.D. by Mr. Ashis Dutta, A.E. & Station Manager of the OP No. 1, before the OC, Dasnagar PS on 25.04.2014. Thereafter, the Complainant was informed by the OP No. 1 by a letter dated 02.05.2014 informing him that necessary way leave was not provided for the new electric service connection, but not of the fact of G.D. Further, he received a letter from OP No. 1 dated 15.05.2014 that a hearing will be held on 27.05.2014 at 15.30 hours in the chamber of the OP No. 1 regarding the new service connection of the Complainant and the subsequent objection raised by the OP No. 2, who happens to be the brother of the Complainant. Accordingly, he attended the hearing and informed his position, but the OP No. 1 did not take the call. So, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP No. 1 is simply that of resistance on the part of the OP No. 2 in the matter.
Per contra, the case of the OP No. 2 is that the Complainant has been using the meter in the name of the mother, but did not pay the bill which amounted to Rs.14,578/-, for which the authority disconnected the said meter, and the mother has sold out the premises in favour of this OP and an eviction suit is pending against the Complainant with an injunction order. Now, the Complainant is trying to take a separate electric meter in his name, which he can not do as this OP is the sole owner of the property. Accordingly, he prayed for payment of all dues of that meter by the Complainant when the OP No. 1 may regenerate the said meter.
It is to be considered if the impugned order allowing the prayer of the Complainant to take a new electric service connection is a rightful one in the light of facts and law.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the property belongs to the Appellant. Both Civil and Criminal suits are pending in the matter. So, the Complainant will not be entitled to get a new separate electric service connection in his name as prayed for by him.
Ld. Advocate for both the Respondents have submitted that the order in question of the Ld. District Forum has been complied with, and there has been no necessity for proceeding with the appeal by the Appellant.
As matter stands, the order has been complied and new electric connection, as per the impugned order, has been effected in favour of the Complainant. The propriety of the impugned order is thus rather found in the position that the Complainant happens to be an occupier of the said premises for which he will be entitled to have a separate electric service connection in his own name. Any other issues, including the pre-existence of another meter, since disconnected, can not be considered as a case in favour of the OP No. 2, i.e., the Appellant. There is nothing to disturb the impugned order passed in this behalf by the Ld. District Forum entitling the Complainant to have a new electric service connection in his admittedly occupied premises in his name. This is, however, irrespective of any right, title and interest of the Complainant in the property. The impugned order stands and affirmed. The appeal is thus dismissed.
