This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant, Samar Kumar Gupta.
The case of the complainant’s in short is that he is a consumer of CESC Ltd., having consumer No.66058079001. He noticed that an electric meter has been installed beside the existing meter of the petitioner and being astonished, on enquiry he came to know that some persons trespassed into his house and installed the meter claiming themselves as men of opposite party company in order to establish a third party Ashoka Bose as tenant in the premises. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the respective departments of the opposite party for removal of the same but there was no fruitful result. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the Director of the company Sri Sanjib Goenka for clarification. But there was also no fruitful result.
Thereafter the scenario has been changed as the petitioner got a decree of eviction against the wrong doer whom the men of the opposite party provided the electrification by illegal manner and or taking illegal gratification. That to meet the painful obstruction in removal of the said illegal installation of meter in the premises of the petitioner he has incurred heavy amount for meeting the litigation in the court as well as suffered from mental agony on account of the acts stated above. As such the petitioner served a notice through his Advocate and demanded for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party.
After receiving the said notice the opposite party No.2 send a letter to the petitioner denying the allegation stated in the notice by the petitioner as well as threatened him to withdraw the advocate’s letter. That receiving the said letter from the opposite party No.2 the petitioner gave a rejoinder on 11.5.2017 against the said letter dated 26.4.2017. The said rejoinder duly served upon the opposite parties but no fruitful result till today. Finding no other alternative the petitioner filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- as incurred by the petitioner as litigation expenditure, to pay Rs.50,000/- as causing mental agony and harassment.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations para wise as leveled against them. This opposite parties submit that pursuant to the request of Ashoka Basu who happened to be the tenant of the complainant for installed a new meter and as per written application from the occupier Ashoka Basu and also no objection documents on behalf of the complainant the opposite parties installed a new meter board on 30.10.2015.
That at the time of installation the new meter board there was neither any objection nor any resistance from the part of the complainant who is the owner of the premises. So, there was the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party forcefully entered his premises and installed the supply in the name of Ashoka Basu, is totally false and unjustified.
That opposite parties submited that the complainant has admitted that he took legal steps against Ashoka Basu and others in a proper forum and obtained a decree of eviction. So, it is confirms that Ashoka Basu is the occupier of such residence. However, no such copy of the decree of eviction have been submitted by the petitioner to the opposite parties. These opposite party also submitted that it is their statutory duty U/s. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to grant supply in favour of an occupier of a premise who complies with requisite formalities.
That the meter in the name of Ashoka Basu can only be disconnected and removed either if the said petitioner opts for it or an order is passed to that effect by any court or in accordance with law.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that the persons of the opposite party Company installed unauthorized meter being No.532627 trespassing into his house by using duplicate key without his permission and consent. He also assailed that he got degree of eviction for which he has to incur heavy amount of money as litigation cost so he suffered mental agony. The opposite party provided electric connection to establish that Asoka Basu as a tenant in the premises of the complainant. The complainant also assailed that he got decree of eviction against one Sovan Kr. Bose the wrong doer whom the men of the opposite party provided the electricity by illegal manner and or taking gratification. It is also admitted that Ashoka Basu was not occupier in the premises but one Sovan Kr. Basu was occupier therein.
The opposite party in his evidence on affidavit averred that Ashoka Basu who happens to be tenant of the complainant requested the opposite party to install a new meter as occupier in the house of the complainant and no objection documents from the complainants and installed a new meter on 30.10.2015. During the period of installation of new meter there was neither any objection nor any resistance from the part of the complainant who is the owner of the premises. Complainant admitted that he took legal steps against the said Ashoka Basu and others in a proper Forum and obtained decree of eviction. So it may be said the Ashoka Basu was occupier. According to section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003 to grant supply in favour of an occupier of a premises who complies with requisite formalities. All other allegations are denied as not a fact.
Perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, documents in the case record and hearing the arguments advanced by the complainant and the Ld. Advocates of the opposite party it appears that the complainant being the consumer of the opposite party filed the complaint case having jurisdiction before this Forum and averred that the opposite party provided a new meter in the name of one Ashoka Basu who seems to be occupier in the house of the complainant. According to this opposite party the said consumer namely Ashoka Basu after complying the formalities received power connection having separate meter in her name during the period of installation of new meter there was neither any objection nor any resistance from the part of the complainant. So the allegation leveled against the opposite party that they installed new meter in the name of an unauthorized person in the precincts of the complainant in not tenable in the eye of law. The complainant also alleged that he got decree of eviction from the appropriate Forum but no such order filed in the case record. It appears from the order of SDEM, Serampore dated16.09.2015 in c/w case No.1642 of 2015 the Executive Magistrate court directed the Electric department to restore the electric connection if the disconnection is made illegally. In case no.1518 of 2015 in c/w petition filed u/s-144(2) Cr.P.C by Ashoka Basu the Hon’ble Executive Court directed the Chairman Baidyabati Municipality to enquire and submit a report early. In the meantime the opposite parties are restrained from causing any disturbance in the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioner in the scheduled property in any manner. I/C Serampore P.S. to keep watch on the situation so that no untoward incident takes place. The hon’ble S.D.E.M, Serampore directed the police authority and the chairman of civic bodies to look onto the matter so the Ashoka Basu may leads a peaceful life and electricity authority is also directed not to disconnect the power connection in the name of Ashoka Basu. So we cannot say that the opposite party C.E.S.C supplied power connection to an unauthorized person in house of the complainant. The complainant also failed to produce any document in respect of decree of eviction of the occupier namely Ashoka Basu. So it is crystal clear that the complainant failed to establish his case by adducing sufficient documents. The pious act of legislation frustrated at the apathetic attitude of this complainant. So, the complaint petition has no leg to stand. Accordingly, the complainant fails to inspire confidence in the mind of the Forum regarding his grievances against the opposite parties. The case fails miserable for want of sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence. As such the complaint petition is bereft of merit so it is deserved to be dismissed.
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party by adducing evidence. So there is no question to allow cost & compensation.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No. 210/2017 be & the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
