Judgment : Dt.20.6.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Mohon Naskar against (1) CESC Ltd., OP No.1, (2) District Engineer South-West district, CESC Ltd, OP No.2 and Sailen Batabyal, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon OP No.1 & 2 to install the new electricity connection at the schedule premises in the name of the Complainant with the assistance of Officer-in-charge, Behala P.S. and a direction upon OP No.3 not to obstruct the workers of the OP No.1 & 2 at the time of installation of new meter and costs.

            In brief the facts are that Complainant was inducted by OP No.3 a monthly tenant in respect of one asbestos shed room measuring about 15’X 5’ at premises No.186, B.L.Saha Rd, P.S.-Behala, at a rental of Rs.750/- p.m.  At the time of induction, an agreement was executed between the parties on 1.8.2008. The rate of rent was gradually enhanced to Rs.825/- p.m. Complainant used to pay the rent regularly. But OP No.3 since refused to give the rent receipt, Complainant started to deposit the rent in the office of Rent Controller. The Complainant used to get the supply of electricity in the said premises from the meter standing in the name of OP No.3 and paid charges as per the request of OP No.3. Complainant applied  for electric connection after OP No.3 disconnected the supply of electricity from his meter. The representatives of OP No.1 & 2 came and inspected the premises. But, due to the obstruction of OP No.3 the meter could not be installed. OP No.3 is an anti-social person and he is in the habit of disturbing the men and agent of OP No.1 & 2. So, Complainant filed this case.

            All the OPs contested the case by filing written version. OP No.1 & 2 have denied the allegations and finally they have stated that due to the obstruction created by OP No.3 the meter could not be installed. They have also stated that if opportunity and security are provided they are ready and willing to install the meter. So, they have prayed for dismissal of this case.

            OP No.3 has separately filed written version where he has denied all the allegations and has stated that Complainant is a litigant type of person and is in the habit of filing cases for nothing. Complainant stopped paying electricity bill but consuming electricity. So, question of non-supply of electricity does not arise. This OP has also prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has asserted the facts mentioned in the complaint. OP No.3 has also filed affidavit-in-chief where he has avoided the contention of the written version. OP No.3 filed affidavit-in-reply to the questionnaire of Complainant. OP No.1 & 2 did not file affidavit-in-chief. But Ld. Advocate participated during the argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Ld. Advocate for OP No.3 submitted that Complainant filed a civil suit bearing title No.73 of 2015 praying for the same relief which Complainant has sought before this Consumer Forum. Copies of two order sheets have been filed. Order No.21 dt.3.5.2016 reflects that Ld. Civil Court has directed OP No.3 that they must not obstruct CESC from inspection of the suit property for providing a new electric connection in respect of the property. Further, order dt.26.8.2015 reveals that plaintiff is at liberty to apply for new electricity meter in his own name in respect of the said property. So, it appears that the Complainant filed a suit before this complaint prayed for relief of getting separate electric connection and that his suit is still pending where Ld. Civil Court has passed order giving relief to the Complainant.

            Now, in this complaint the relief of complainant, as it appears from the prayer portion, is a direction upon the OP No.1 & 2 to install a new electricity connection in the name of Complainant with the assistance of Officer-in-charge, Behala P.S. and direction upon OP No.3 not to obstruct the workers of OP No.1 & 2 in installation of new meter t the premises. So, in sum and substance, it appears that Complainant filed suit praying the same relief where by the way of injunction a part of the relief has already been granted and the suit is still pending.

            As such, we are of the view that during the pendency of dispute and suppression of the fact by the Complainant by not filing the copy of the plaint and the copy of the order sheet, Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/567/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.