This is a complaint made by one Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, presently residing at 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Jasoda Bhawan, 2nd floor, Block-F, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019, against (1) The Grievance Redressal Officer (CESC Ltd.), 6, Mandeville Gardens, Kolkata- 700 092, OP No.1, (2) License Issuing Officer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Gariahat, OP No.2 and (3) Pooja Sharma, wife of Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, daughter of Vinod Sharma of 5/1/1B, Cornfield Road, Manikanchan Apartment, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019, OP No.3 praying for an order (a) directing the respondent No.1 to disconnect the commercial electricity connection to premises No.162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700 045, (b) directing the respondent No.1 to forthwith produce the papers and documents related to Commercial Consumer No.07120098036, (c) an injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from further issuing any further illegal commercial electricity bills, (d) an interim order in terms of prayer (a) above, (e) directing for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and (f) for litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a law abiding citizen and owner of a residential house at the premises No.162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkakta-700 045. OP No.1 is a company within the meaning of The Companies Act and a licensee in terms of Section 14 of the electricity Act and responsible for distribution of electricity in and around Kolkata. Respondent No.2 is the concerned department of KMC entrusted with the responsibility of giving trade license. OP No.3 is a private respondent and is the wife of the petitioner and presently having custody of his minor child.
The petitioner and respondent No.3 are husband and wife who are married in the year 1999. Complainant allowed respondent No.3 to reside at one of his properties at 162/A/78, Lake Gardens. However, the ownership of the said property till date remains with the Complainant.
In or about the month of October, Complainant was handed over with an electricity bill for October, 2014, wherefrom it was evident that a commercial meter was applied and was installed at the said premises in the name of Vedant Sharma being the minor son of the Complainant and OP No.3. Said connection was commercial in nature and could not have been obtained without providing the current trade license, issued by the KMC. After this bill was issued, Complainant approached OP No.1 at its office and demanded the documents related to the commercial electricity meter. But, Complainant was not given any document. Complainant further states that even if it is found that OP has actually issued the electric meter OP No.1 has no right to issue illegal bills. Complainant also lodged a complaint with the O.C., Lake Police Station, in respect of the illegal electricity commercial bills. Thereafter, again, OP No.1 issued a commercial electricity bill in the name of his minor son. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 filed written version denying all the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that Complainant is not a consumer in any way and he has no right to file this complaint. Electric meter is in the name of Pooja Sharma and other in the name of Vedant Sharma. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of this case. Other OPs have not made any appearance.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts which he has mentioned in the complaint petition. Only OP No.1 CESC has filed written version and denied the material allegations.
Main point for determination is whether Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the first prayer of the Complainant for directing the OP No.1 to disconnect the commercial electricity connection to premises No.162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700 .045. In this regard, record does not reveal that this electric meter is in the name of the Complainant. Had it been so, the matter would have been otherwise. It has been alleged that this electric connection is in the name of a minor child. Accordingly, Complainant does not have any right to pray for its cancellation because Complainant does not become consumer.
The 2nd prayer of the Complainant is for a direction upon the OP to produce the papers and documents related to the Commercial Consumer No. in the name of Vedant Sharma.
The 3rd prayer for an injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from further issuing any further illegal electric bill in the name of Vedant Sharma. Complainant does not have any right to ask for the documents and papers as to why the electric connection was given in the name of Vedanta Sharma.
For seeking any relief, Complainant now has to establish first that he is a consumer. Here Complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer and has right under Consumer Protection Act to seek documents and papers of the electric connection which is in the name of Vedant Sharma. As such, Complainant is not entitled to this prayer also.
Prayer (c) is an order of injunction restraining OP No.1 from further issuing electricity bill in the name Master Vedant Sharma in respect of premises No.162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700 045. On perusal of this prayer, it appears that Complainant seeks a direction upon OP No.2 not to issue any illegal bill. Here it is noteworthy that Complainant has no authority to declare that OP No.1 which is Grievance Redressal Officer, CESC Ltd. issued any illegal bill. Accordingly, this prayer does not appear to have any basis.
Further, Complainant has prayed for an interim order in terms of prayer (a) and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that this complaint has been filed without any ground and so Complainant does not appear to have any right to have any right to have any interim order on the OP for compensation or litigation cost.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this complaint.
Hence ,
ordered
CC/402/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
