DATE OF FILING : 08-04-2010.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-09-2010.
Subhadra Bera,
wife of Late Deben Bera,
resident of holding no. 73/2/1, Shib Gopal Benejee Lane,
P.S. Malipanchghora,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., 433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),
District – Howrah.
2. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.,
a corporate body having its office situated at
Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata.
3. Sandhya Patra,
wife of Late Sankar Patra,
daughter of Late Biswanath Patra,
resident of holding no. 75, Shib Gopal Benerjee Lane,
P.S. Malipanchghora, District – Howrah.
4. Krishna Khanra,
son of Gopal Khanra,
resident of holding no. 73/2/1, Shib Gopal Benerjee Lane,
P.S. Malipanchghora,
District – Howrah. -----------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Md. Atique Farhad,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2
: Shri Pranab Kr. Biswas,
Ld. Advocate.
Opposite Party No. 3 : Ex parte.
Representatives for the opposite party no. 4 : Shri Dipendra Ghosh,
& others,
Ld. Advocates.
F I N A L O R D E R
In their written version of o.ps. no. 1 & 2 they admitted that they received the requisition for supply of electricity from the complainant on 31-07-2009. After receiving the said application the men of CESC Ltd. was deputed on 14-08-2009 to inspect the site but the free access to the existing meter board was not available to them due to obstruction by the landlady of the petitioner and her associates Again the date of inspection was fixed on 05-03 2010 by CESC Ltd. but that could not be done due to objection raised on the site. The said incident was informed to the complainant by the CESC Ltd. in writing by letter dated 06-03-2010 . In their written version o.ps. no. 1 & 2 stated that it is the duty of the applicant to make an arrangement for free access to the meter board but in this case the complainant failed to do so. It is also stated that the disputes involved in the petition is civil in nature.
In their written version o.p. no. 4 denied all allegations against them made by the complainant. Moreover, counsel for o.p. no. 4 stated that the complainant resides at other holding no. 11/1, Sashi Bhusan Mukherjee Lane, Salkia, P.S. M.P. Ghora, District – Howrah, In this connection o.p. no. 4 has submitted voter list of Howrah ( N) Assembly Constituency which reveals that the complainant is not the resident of 73/2/1 Shib Gopal Banerjee Lane,Howrah. Plea taken by o.p. no. 4 is that neither Biswanath Patra nor o.p. no. 3 is the rightful owner of the aforesaid holding no. 73/2/1, Shib Gopal Banerjee Lane, P.S. Malipanchghora, Howrah. O.p. no. 4 is the owner and occupier of the aforesaid holding obtained by inheritance. So the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant case. Therefore, the instant case should be liable to be dismissed with cost.
In view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination :
1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. no. 1 & 2, CESC Ltd. ?
2) Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
POINTS NO. 1 & 2 :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and for brevity.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for separate meter and new electric connection. On her application o.p. no. 1 & 2 went to the spot for inspection but due to physical resistance the same could not be made.
It may also be mentioned that o.ps. no. 1 & 2 CESC Ltd. in their written version did not dispute the fact that the complainant applied for new electric connection and separate meter.
Now turning to the question of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 it appears that the men of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 went for inspection but due to the obstruction they could not do the same. It appears that o.p. nos. 1 & 2 have not refused to provide electric supply to the complainant. But due to physical obstruction raised at the site they could not perform their job. O.ps. no. 1 & 2 duly informed the matter to the complainant by their letter dated 06-03-2010 and asking the complainant for making arrangement for free access. Thus the complainant has failed to prove that o.p., CESC Ltd. has committed deficiency in service.
Plea taken by o.p. no. 4 is not at all acceptable. They have no right to raise objection for electric supply to any body. But if there is any dispute between the complainant and o.p. no. 4 that is purely civil dispute. The Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order against o.p. no. 4.
But whether the complainant is entitled to get new electric connection or not , the necessary document is whether the complainant resides at that premises for which the application for electric supply was made. But in the instant case the complainant has filed one rent receipt for the year 1412 ( Bengali ). They could not file any recent rent receipt. The complainant has also filed a xerox copy of voter identity card of her son of the holding 73/2/1, Shib Gopal Banerjee Lane, Sadar, Howrah. The complainant could not file her voter identity card which may prove that she is the occupier of the aforesaid holding. No document has been filed which proves that the complainant is presently resides at the aforesaid holding. Complainant has filed the xerox copy of the front page of bank pass book where it is stated that the address of the complainant is 73/2/1, Shib Gopal Banerjee Lane, Sadar, Howrah. But this document does not prove that presently the complainant resides in the aforesaid holding.We also could not find any document in proof of present tenancy of the complainant under o.p. no.3 of the afiresaid holding.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum holds and concludes that the complainant is not entitled to get any order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result the application fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is dismissed on contest against o.ps. no. 1, 2 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no. 3 without cost as there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p., CESC Ltd.
Let certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya )
Member, C.D.R.F., HOWRAH.
( Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya )
Member, C.D.R.F., HOWRAH.
( Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty )
Member, C.D.R.F., HOWRAH.