Date of Filing: 04/09/2019
Date of Judgment: 26/05/2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant , Tapan Kumar Chakraborty, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties ( referred to as O.Ps hereinafter) namely 1) The District Engineer, M/s C.E.S.C. Ltd. and 2) The Commercial Manager, M/s C.E.S.C. Ltd. , alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The case of the complainant in short is that he was a tenant in respect of one shop room at 121 , M.G Road, Kolkata – 700 082 which he had purchased subsequently from the land owner. The possession was not delivered to him. A case was filed being CC/190/2013. Against the judgment and order of dismissal passed in that case, an appeal was preferred by the complainant before the Hon’ble State Commission, wherein the complainant succeeded. However, owners preferred a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission which was finally dismissed on 7.12.2018. Thereafter in an execution case filed by the complainant he got possession of the said property on 11.2.2019. He had applied for a commercial meter in the year 2012 and had also paid necessary charges as per MASD bill dated 20.12.2012 for Rs. 8660/- and the O.P had also installed electric meter at the premises no. 121, M.G Road, Kolkata – 82 . But for non-delivery of the possession of the said shop room to the complainant, he could not utilise the said shop room and the electric connection provided therein. Ultimately due to non-use of electricity and non-payment of electricity charges the said electric connection had been disconnected and the O.Ps removed the electric meter from the said premises. After getting possession of the shop room complainant approached the O.P requesting for restoration of the electric connection and the meter therein but as he was denied , the present complaint has been filed for directing the O.Ps to restore and install the commercial electric meter and the connection at the shop of the complainant at premises no. 121, Karunamoyee Ghat Road, Kolkata – 82 , to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac for harassment and to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The case has been contested by the O.P CESC by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations therein contending inter alia that on his application the new meter was supplied for commercial load at the existing meter room of premises no., 23, M.G Road, Kolkata – 82 after payment of the MASD Bill of Rs.8660/- by the complainant and on compliance of other formalities . The Meter being no. 4512925 under Consumer no. 9230019014 was standing in the name of the complainant. But the same was disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity bill by the complainant. The O.Ps after disconnection of the said supply had taken steps to refund the available security deposit with applicable interest in favour of the complainant through cheque. But the said cheque was returned back since complainant was not available at the said premises. It is further contended by the O.Ps that since the supply was disconnected for a long time, the O.Ps removed the said disconnected meter being number referred to above from the existing meter room of the said premises as per Regulation 4.6.1 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2013. It is also contended that if the complainant further applies for a new meter in the existing meter room and all the formalities are complied, they will install the new meter at the existing meter room of the said premises in favour of the complainant. So, O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of the trial parties have filed their respective evidence followed by filing questionnaire and reply and ultimately argument has been advanced by both parties. They also filed BNA.
So, the following points require determination :
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition.
It is an admitted fact that a meter for the commercial purpose was installed on the application of the complainant on 7.11.2012. The necessary charges as per MASD bill i.e for an amount of Rs. 8660/- was paid by the complainant and thereafter the installation of the said electric meter was done. But according to the complainant he could not use the shop room and thus could not consume electricity and enjoy the electric meter supplied to him because he was not handed over the shop room by the owner, for which a case was filed and ultimately in an execution proceedings against the owner, complainant got the possession through machinery of the Commission i.e District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore on 11.2.2019. Even though complainant has claimed that he did not receive any electric bill , neither received any notice before the disconnection of the electricity and removal of the meter, but on a careful scrutiny of the complaint it appears that in para 6 of the complaint complainant himself has stated that due to non-delivery of possession of the shop room the complainant could not utilise the shop room and the electric connection in the said shop room and so ultimately due to non-payment of electricity charges, the said electric connection has been disconnected. So, the argument by the complainant that no bill was raised and he did not receive any bill cannot be accepted by the own admission of the complainant as referred to above in the complaint.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant at the time of argument pointed out the 2 letters written to the Commercial Manager, CESC Ltd. on 28.6.2013, (whereby it appears that a letter dated 10.10.2012 was also annexed) and the letter dated 27.9.2014 and has argued that by the said letter dated 28.6.2013 complainant had brought to the notice of the Commercial Manager that he was yet to receive the bill and in case of any bill already sent , he be issued the duplicate bill on the basis of information given. Even though it has been argued that by the said letter Commercial Manger was informed for sending duplicate bill , if any, in the address as stated therein, but it appears from the said letter that there is no mention by the complainant that the duplicate to be sent in a particular address .Apart from this, the letter dated 27.9.2014 sent by the complainant himself reveals that he was getting SMS messages from the CESC regarding the meter reading in respect of the meter installed in the premises in question in favour of the complainant and he had informed by the said letter to the CESC that he was yet to get possession of the said shop room. So, the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant that no bill was raised or no duplicate was sent to him inspite of him praying for the same cannot be accepted because of his own document that he was getting the SMS about the meter reading. According to the O.P, since no payment was made by the complainant towards the electricity bill raised by the O.P, they had to disconnect the electricity line and ultimately the meter had to be removed in view of the Regulation 4.6.1 of the year 2013. Since admittedly complainant was not in possession of the said shop room, there cannot be any denial or dispute that no payment towards the electric bill was made as it is the own case of the complainant that since he did not get possession, he could not enjoy the consumption of electricity and he got the possession only in the year 2019. It appears from the written version filed by the O.P that there is still the security deposit with the O.P as according to them after adjustment the balance was sent through cheque in the said address of the complainant but it was returned back as the complainant was not available in the said premises. So, the said amount towards the security deposit which according to the O.Ps is required to be refunded to the complainant can be utilised for the supply of new electric meter. It has also been submitted by the O.Ps that they are ready and willing to install the new meter at the existing meter room in the said premises in respect of the shop room in favour of the complainant after all the formalities is complied. In our view, since the meter, which was installed and has already been removed, appears to be long back, the purpose will be served if the O.Ps install a new meter adjusting the amount which the complainant is entitled to get back from the O.Ps.
In the given situation, we find no justification to allow any compensation as prayed by the complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/473/2019 is allowed on contest.
O.Ps are directed to supply a new commercial meter in the name of the complainant in respect of the shop room at premises no. 121, Karunamoyee Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700 082 (previous premises no being 23, M.G. Road) within one month from this date. Complainant has to comply all the formalities.
However, be it mentioned that O.Ps may adjust the balance amount towards the security deposit for the new meter.
O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.8000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period of one month.
