Date of filing : 28.03.2018

Judgment : Dt.13.03.2020

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member

          This petition of complaint is filed under 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 by  Samrat Biswas alleging deficiency in service  on the part of the Opposite Parties (1) The District Engineer, CESC (2) Santi Rani Biswas.

          Case of the complainant  in brief is that the complaint has been residing at premises no. 149/3, Becharam Chatterjee Road along with his mother and younger brother and has been enjoying electricity through the existing meter standing in the name of Opposite Party No.2 ( referred as OP No.2 hereinafter ) happens to be  grandmother of the complainant.  The complainant has stated that his father who died on  07.06.2016 was the co-owner of said premises along  with Santi Rani Biswas (OP No.2 herein), Dipanwita Halder and Santa Roy Chowdhury and after demise of his father  legal heirs of said deceased  i.e. his wife and  two sons became the joint owners of the part of the said premises by  the way of inheritance. The complainant has stated that his grandmother (OPNo.2 herein) along with one of  her daughter has been in possession  of the 1^st floor of the building  situated on the said premises but due to some internal family disputes relating to consumption of electricity relations between the complainant and his grandmother became   sour which resulted the complainant to seek different meter to use  electricity  as per his own discretion.  The complainant has further stated that he applied for  providing new connection in his favour on 09.11.2017 with the  CESC but the said application was rejected by CESC on 13.11.2017 vide notice being no. 02/15379/17 in violation of Constitutional Rights of the complainant  and the complainant again on 08.03.2018  submitted another application with the OP No.1  which was acknowledged by CESC vide letter dt. 08.03.2018 and an estimate of Rs. 17,120/- for  installation of new meter  was raised and sent to the complainant on 8.3.2018 but without giving any opportunity to deposit the said amount the  CESC vide notice dt. 10.3.2018 cancelled the application on the ground that more than one application were under process of the said premises in favour  of the complainant. It is stated by the complainant  that he contacted  Grievance Redressal Cell of the CESC and also sent mail but no result had been yielded and being aggrieved the complainant by filing the instant  consumer complainant prayed for direction upon the OP No.1 to provide  new connection installing  new meter  in favour  of the complaint, to direct OP No.2 to render all assistance to the OP No.1,  to pay Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation, Rs. 7,000/- towards compensation.

          The complainant annexed application  dt. 8.3.2018,  letter dt. 8.3.2018 issued by OP No1, Provisional Demand Note, Letter of Cancellation dt. 10.03.2018, letter issued by the complainant  to the Greivance Redressal Officer, Letter dt. 13.11.2017 issued by OP No.1, Property tax invoice,  Death Certificate of Arup Biswas Electricity Bill for January 2018.

          Notices were served but the OP No.2 did not turn up so the case proceeded  exparte against  OP No.2 vide order dt.2.7.2018.

          The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the  petition of complaint  stating inter alia , that on receiving application on 9.11.2017 from the complainant for  providing   new electricity connection the OP No.1 carried out inspection  on the said premises and noticed that the said premises had already  been provided with the electricity connection and the  complainant  had been enjoying  electricity through  the said connection and the complainant   was  requested to register his  grievance  as per terms of Clause  14 of the Regulation  53  since  new connection could not be provided in his favour. However, the complainant on 8.3.2018 again applied for  new connection which was  denied on the ground the previous one was rejected. The complainants thereafter  approached the   Grievance Redressal Officer. It is  stated by OP No.1 that as per the Electricity  Act, 2003 of West Bengal Regulatory Commission   Regulation  2013  the onus lies upon the applicant to prove that the new connection sought not  for  the purpose of splitting  load and, further, any dispute relating to the  same is to be settled by the Ombudsman. The  OPNo.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

          The  complainant and the OP No.1 adduced evidence followed by cross-examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.

          In course of argument Ld. Advocate narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of  complainant. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP submits that the complainant wanted to obtain new connection only for splitting load.OP filed Brief Notes of Argument.

Points for  determination :  

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for .

Decision with reasons

          Point Nos. 1 & 2  : Both points are taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision . The complainant  has claimed that his father was the co-owner of  a piece of land  having  premises no. 149/3, Beharam Chatterjee Road,  and  after his demise the complainant along with his  mother  and younger brother became the co-owner of the undivided proportionate share of the said premises.

          Tax invoice generated by Kolkata Municipal Corporation  supports that  Shanti Rani Biswas  ( OP =No.2  herein) Arup Biswas , Dipanwita Halder, Santa Roy Chowdhury  are the joint owners of the said piece of land. Death Certificate of Arup Biswas shows that said  Arup Biswas  (father of the complainant )  died  on 7.6.2016 and being the legal heir of  said Arup Biswas the complainant along with his mother namely Sonali Biswas and younger brother namely Swarup Biswas became then owner of the said premises by way of inheritance. The  complainant has claimed that he applied for a  new electric connection on 9.11.2017 and the same was rejected by the OP /CESC  on  13.11.2017. It appears  from letter dt. 13.11.2017 issued by District Engineer, South  West District to the complainant  that in response to the  application filed by the complainant on 9.11.2017 an inspection was carried out and the OP found that the premises had already been provided with electricity connection. The complainant has further stated that since  on 8.3.2018 he applied  again for providing  a  new electricity connection  he was provided with estimated cost for installation of  new meter but on 10.3.2018 he was  informed that more than one application  at the said premises in favour of the complainant were  under process. Letter dt. 8.3.2018,  Provisional Demand Notice, letter dt. 10. 3.2018 issued and generated from the end of the OP No.1 supports such  averment of the complainant.

          It appears from documents on record that the application dt. 09.11.2017  submitted by the complaint  for obtaining  new connection  was rejected and  thereafter the complainant filed  another application on 08.03.2018.

          The OP alleged that the new connection was  asked to be provided only to split load. However, no document has been filed by  OP in support  of such averment. Moreover, the complainant by swearing affidavit  has  stated in his petition of complaint  as well as in evidence that due to some disputes regarding consumption of electricity  from the existing meter stands in the  name of OP no.2 and continuous threatening to  disconnect the said connection from the end of the OP no.2 the complainant  compelled to submit application for obtaining  new connection. It is  also observed that the OP No.1 did not cross-examined the evidence of the complainant  and did not file any reply against questionnaire of the complaint which suggests that there was  nothing to contradict  in the evidence of the complainant  and nothing to state against questionnaire advanced by the complainant.

          In  such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the complainant  is entitled to get relief in respect of installation of new meter after completion of all formalities.

          Regarding prayer to direct the OP No.2 to render all assistance to the OP No.1 at the time of installation of new meter. Considering the  circumstances, we are inclined to direct the  OP No.2 not to create any obstruction  at the time of installation of new meter . Regarding prayer for compensation , we do not find any ground to allow the same.

          However, the OP No.1  compelled the complenant to file the  instant case and, therefore, they are liable to pay litigation cost.

Point Nos. 1 & 2 are decided.

Hence,

                     Ordered

          That CC/162/2018 is allowed on contest against OP No.1 with cost and exparte against the OP No.2.

          OP No.1 is directed to install new meter in favour of the complainant at the scheduled premises mentioned in the petition of complaint within two months from the date of this order and the OP No.2  is  directed not to create any obstruction  at the time of installation of new meter. OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards  cost of litigation within the above-mentioned period.