Date of Filing: 14/01/2019

Date of Judgment:24.05.2022

Mrs.  Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainant , Sri Tapash Chakraborty under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties namely (1) The District Engineer CESC Ltd. and (2) Sri Chandan Chakraborty (referred to as O.Ps), alleging deficiency in service on their   part.

            The case of the complainant in short is that his father namely Pabitralal Chakraborty was consumer of electricity through Meter no. 278321101G , single phase, having Consumer No. 754026998 in the premises situated at 45, P. Majumder Road under Garfa Police Station, Kolkata. The said father of the complainant died on 11.1.2001 leaving behind complainant and O.P no.2 as his sons . After the death of his father complainant is exclusively using the said meter standing in the name of his father . O.P no.2 has a separate meter in his name. Complainant applied for a meter in his name before the O.P no.1. The O.P came for inspection but through Mail dated 14.11.2018  expressed its inability in providing electric meter in the name of the complainant as the premises has already been provided and supplied with the electricity connection. It is also learnt by the complainant that O.P no.2 has raised objection before the O.P no.1 in installing a new meter in the name of the complainant. So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant  praying for directing the O.P no.1 to install a new meter in the  name of the complainant or replace the name of the complainant in respect of the meter standing in the name of his father, since deceased and for directing the O.P no.2 not to create any disturbance at the time of installation of the meter by O.P no.1 in the name of the complainant.

            The O.P no.1 has contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that there are already 3 meters in the said premises. Since the complainant is getting electric supply from  an existing meter , there is no necessity to give another meter just to split the load. It is further stated by the O.P no.1 that they are ready to transfer the supply in favour of the complainant replacing his name in respect of the meter standing in the name of his deceased father , if other legal heirs give consent to the same.  But the O.P no.2 has objected to such transfer. Thus, O.P no.1 prays for dismissal of the case.

            Inspite of service of the notice no step was taken by the O.P no.2. Thus case proceeded exparte against O.P no.2.

            Complainant in support of his claim has filed letters/mails exchanged between the O.P no.1 and the complainant, the death certificate of his father and also a copy of the electricity bill in respect of the meter standing in the name of his father of November, 2018. 

            So, only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

  Decision with reasons

            It is specifically claimed by the complainant that O.P no.2 has a separate meter in his name who is the brother of the complainant and the complainant has been enjoying electricity through the meter standing in the name of his deceased father. It appears from the electric bill filed by the complainant for the month of November, 2018 that Meter being no. 278321101G having Consumer No. 754026998 is standing in the name of Pabitralal Chakrarborty, since deceased. So, not only the said electric bill indicates that the complainant has been enjoying electricity through the said meter even after the death of his father who died in the year 2001, but this fact is also admitted by the O.P no.1 itself. It is also the contention of the O.P no.1 that they could replace the name of the complainant  in respect of the meter standing in the name of his deceased father but objection has been raised by the O.P no.2 from transferring the electric meter in the name of the complainant. It is strange that O.P no.2 ,who himself is enjoying electricity separately by a meter standing in his name, is raising objection for no reason. The written version filed by the O.P no.1 indicates that they have also no objection to provide a new meter in the name of the complainant.

            Since it is an admitted fact as already highlighted above that the complainant has been enjoying electricity from the meter standing in the name of his deceased father, it would be appropriate if the same is transferred in the name of the complainant.  The objection filed by the O.P no.2 would have been justified if he was not enjoying electricity or he had no separate meter in his name. So, for the said reason as highlighted above, complainant is entitled to electric meter in his name and thus relief as prayed for by the complainant is allowed . 

            Hence,

                                  ORDERED

That the CC/17/2019 is allowed on contest against O.P no.1 and exparte against O.P no.2.

O.P no.1 is directed either to provide a new electric meter in the name of the complainant on payment of the requisite fees or in alternatively they may replace the name of the complainant in respect of the meter standing in the name of Pabitralal Chakraborty ,since deceased, within 1(one) month from this date.

O.P no.2 is directed not to create any disturbance or obstruction at the time of installation of the meter by O.P no.1 in name of the complainant. If any resistance or obstruction is caused by the O.P No.2  and there is any delay in installation of meter in the name of the complainant, the O.P -2 shall pay an amount of Rs.20/- per day for such each day delay.