This is a complaint made by Smt. Gita Das Roy against the District Engineer, CESC Ltd., South West district, praying for a direction upon the OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and installation of new connection.
To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant, is that, she applied for a new electric meter in her name before the OP. It is further stated that after waiting for long hours, when the OP did not turn up, her son rushed to the office of the OP to enquire about the matter, however, to his utter surprise, he found the said office under lock & key from 12.30 p.m. Totally bewildered and finding no other way, her son sent an email on 17-01-2015 and delivered a copy of said letter to the OP on 19/20-01-2015. It is alleged that although the OP communicated to her earlier that it would visit Complainant’s place on 17-01-2015, without spot inspection, it sent another letter on 17-01-2015 stating that they had already visited the site on 16-01-2015. Claiming that she had to face irreparable loss and injury due to the conduct of the OP and its officers, Complainant filed this case.
On notice, OP appeared and contested the case. By filing WV, it has denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It is further stated that on 16-01-2015, some other inspections regarding new connection in the same area were scheduled to be done and so, men of the OP at first, before starting their inspection work, visited the house of the Complainant and requested the family members/persons present in the house at that time to ask the Complainant remain present on that day, i.e., on 16-01-2015 in the house for the purpose of inspection. The further case of the OP is that, after completion of other inspections, in presence of the family members of the Complainant, inspection was done at the locale, house of the Complainant and as such, the allegation of prolong waiting from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 17-01-2015, is totally baseless. It is also stated that on inspection at the house of the Complainant in connection with total three applications made, i.e., two applications made by Ram Ranjan Das Roy and Gita Das Roy for a new meter in the existing meter room and the other by Ram Ranjan Das Roy for shifting of the existing meter room, men of the OP asked Ram Ranjan Das Roy to fix/identify the place where his existing service would be shifted and the work of shifting of the existing service in a suitable common position, the new connection, as applied for by other two applicants, namely, Nivedita Das Roy and Gita Das Roy would be given and in this respect a letter dated 17-01-2015 has been sent to the Complainant. The counter allegation made from the side of the OP is that, Ram Ranjan Das Roy, instead of complying with the request made by the OP vide letter dated 17-01-2015, has approached this Forum with a false, frivolous, malicious, vexatious complaint only to squeeze money from the OP. So, it prayed for dismissal of this case.
The solitary point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her.
Decision with reasons
It is alleged by the Complainant that she was informed by the OP through a letter that it would carry out due inspection at her premises on 17-01-2015, but did not turn up on the scheduled date. Taking strong exception to such unprofessional and indifferent attitude on the part of the OP, Complainant filed this case. On the other hand, it is claimed by the OP that although it was scheduled to visit the premises of the Complainant on 17-01-2015, it visited the house of the Complainant a day earlier, i.e., on 16-01-2015 and carried out due inspection.
No doubt, if one fails/neglects to act as promised, it causes great inconvenience to the person at the receiving end. However, here the case is quite different. Denying the allegation of the Complainant, it is claimed by the OP that it carried out due inspection in advance. Now, the question remains who is telling the truth?
It is stated in the petition of complaint that after waiting for long hours, his son visited the Taratala Office of the OP at 12.30 p.m. but found the office under lock & key and so, his son fired an email on the very same day, i.e., on 17-01-2015. Most surprisingly, Complainant has not filed copy of the same for the reasons best known to her.
In this regard, it bears mentioning that in another case, filed by Complainant’s daughter-in-law, Smt. Nivedita Dasray (CC/105/2016) on a self-same matter, it is stated that the OP informed her that it would visit her house in between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 17-01-2015 and so she patiently waited till 3 o’clock in the afternoon. But, when the OP did not turn up, her husband, sent an email on the very same day. There is no whisper anywhere in the said petition of complaint that her husband visited the office of the OP at 12.30 p.m. Clearly, there is no symmetry in the averments made in both the petitions. In any case, although the Complainant has not filed copy of the concerned letter issued from the office of the OP, whereby it intimated the Complainant about its desire to visit the premises of the Complainant on 17-01-2015, it can reasonably be presumed that similar timing was earmarked for the Complainant as well. In such circumstances, one really wonders, what made the Complainant’s son so impatient that although the OP took time till 1 o’clock to carry out necessary inspection, he rushed to the office of the OP at 12.30 p.m. itself.
Taking into consideration such disparity in the statements as made in both the complaint cases and above all, in absence of any material proof to support the allegation of the Complainant, we find no reason whatsoever to hold the OP guilty of any wrongdoing/negligence and consequent thereof, Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs so prayed for by her.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/104/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to impose any cost.
