DATE OF FILING                    :   21-03-2011.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :   31-01-2012.

1.         Dr. Shankar Prasad Maji,

            son of  Late Dr. Nalinakshya Maji,

            resident of Alamohan Das Road,

            Kashipur, Dasnagar, Howrah – 711105,

            presently residing at 20, Wood Court Road,

            Titten Hall, 68 LP, Wolverhampton,

            United Kingdom.

2.         Swapan Kumar Maji,

            son of Late Dr. Nalinakshya Maji,

            residing at Alamohan Das Road, Kashipur,

            Dasnagar, Howrah – 711105.------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT(S)

-          Versus   -

Representatives for the O.Ps.- 1 & 2           :    Shri Mihir Banerjee,

                                                                              Shri Debranjan Banerjee,

                                                                              Shri Chanchal Chakraborty   

F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.         This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.

2.         That the complainants have come up before this Forum against the co-shares / co-owners / O.P. nos. 3 to 6 and O.P. no. 1 to 3, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., praying for removal of the electric meter from  ‘B’ Schedule property and for prohibitory order against the o.ps. no. 3 & 4 for not creating and causing disturbance and obstruction during the removal of the said meter placed by the o.ps. no. 1, 2 & 3 at the instance of the o.ps. no. 3 & 4 as the existence of the same has posed as perpetual threat to life and safety of the inhabitants. Request in writing through registered post dated 25-02-2011 being not acted upon by the O.P. no. 1 to 3, the complainants have filed this petition praying for relief and compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

3.         The o.ps. no. 5 to 6 filed separate written version and  in fact supported the cause of the complainants.

4.         O.P. nos. 3 & 4 in their written version denied the material allegations and stated interalia that the complainants being not the consumers of the meter in dispute have no locus standi to come before this Forum seeking   relief  under the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 ; that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation ; that the said commercial meter is meant for the karkhana in dag no. 3441/3750 and the same was installed on 05-10-2002 to the full knowledge of the complainants and so the case is fit for dismissal.

5.         O.ps. no. 1 & 2 in their written version stated interalia that one application dated 25-02-2011 from the complainant no. 2 was received by the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Authority, the meter was inspected on 01-03-2011 ; that the shifting of the meter in dispute as prayed for could not be acted upon owing to the non co-operation of the licensee of the same meter ; that no question of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 does arise. 

6.         Upon  pleadings of the parties following points arose for determination   :

1.                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. ?

2.                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH REASONS    :

7.         Both the points are taken up together for consideration.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainants argued that there is a separate meter room at the northern side of the building entrance ; the meter in dispute was placed near the southern gate ; the property is unpartitioned and the petition cannot be barred by limitation as a letter was addressed to the O.P. no. 1 &  2 in the month of  Feb’11 and that the complainants are the consumers of their own meter.

8.         Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 3 & 4 argued that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation as the matter  was fixed on 05-10-2002 ; that the complainants are not the consumers with respect to the meter in dispute. So this is a fit case for dismissal. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 argued that the complainants are not consumers with respect to the suit meter and they are not guilty of deficiency in service.

9.         Be that as it may we are constrained to hold that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as the meter was installed at the southern  gate on 05-10-2002 i.e. before nine years of the filing of the instant petition. The petition is not supported by any sufficient cause for saving limitation. The petition before the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Authority in the month of Feb’11 by the complainant no. 2 cannot come as a saviour of the limitation clause. Therefore,            we are of the clear view that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation.

10.       That the meter in question was installed on 05-10-2002 and the instant petition is filed on 21-03-2011 i.e. long after nearly nine years. We fail to understand how the complainants could tolerate the existence of the meter in dispute for these long period though it was the betenoire to them. Suddenly they woke up from deep hibernation clamouring for removal of the said meter with the pretext that it does not look nice that a meter is fixed in a separate place from the original meter place. Had there been any threat to the life and safety of the inmates of the premises, the W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  Authority would not have installed the same in the existing place. Furthermore, the complainants not being the consumers of the meter in dispute, we are unable to pass any order with respect to the shifting of the meter as prayed in the instant petition which is hopelessly barred by limitation.

            In the result we are of the clear view that this is a fit case for dismissal.   

            Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D   

      That the complaint case HDF 20 of 2011  U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date be dismissed but in view of the circumstances without cost.   

            Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.