DATE OF FILING                    :   06-07-2011.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :   20-01-2012.

Maharani Roy,

wife of Late Jadunath Roy,

resident of  ‘Maharani Bhawan’ ,

CTI Dassnagar, P.O. Jagacha,

District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

                         1.     Hon’ble President    :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.

                                C      O      U       N        S        E        L

Representatives for the complainant           :    Shri Prithiwraj Sarkar,

                                                                              Shri Swapan Kr. Maji,

                                                                              Shri Subhrajit Bhattacharya,                                                                            

                                                                              Ld. Advocates.

Representative for the opposite party         :    Shri Abhijit  Bagchi,

                                        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.  and praying for direction upon the O.Ps. to remove the suit electric meter as mentioned in the Schedule ‘B’ from its present position to its original place as it was shifted behind the back of the complainant through clandestine manipulation by the tenant of the complainant Smt. Dipti Biswas with whom the complainant has litigating history alleging forgery in recording the signature of the complainant Maharani Roy in  English, though she always signs in Bengali. The complainant  further alleges that the O.Ps. acted upon at the instance of her tenant Dipti Biswas and shifted the meter from its original place to the present location at the instance of the said tenant. She further alleges that the present position of the meter endangers the life and safety   of the complainant and her family.

2.         The O.Ps. in their written version states that the meter was shifted in the regular course of business ; inspection was conducted on bonafide good faith after receiving the quotation of shifting charges of Rs. 285/- and they are totally ignorant if the signature in the shifting prayer was not  of the complainant Maharani Roy and they had no  scope to verify if she records her signature in Bengali or English. The O.Ps. further state that this is not a case for deficiency of service as the service was rendered  in accordance with law as per prayer of the complainant. So this is a fit case for dismissal.

            Upon  pleadings of both  parties two  points are required to be  determined   :

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    :

3.         On scrutiny of the records and documents it appears that the inspection as per petition for shifting was done in the month of Nov’09 and shifting charges of Rs. 285/- was paid to the O.Ps.’  office and then in the month of Dec’11 the meter was shifted to the present position. We fail to understand how the entire phase of inspection shifting went unnoticed to the complainant at the material time. It is after expiry of two years the complainant files this petition of complaint as if she wakes up from deep slumber. We also fail to understand how a tenant can forge the signature of the complainant for shifting the meter from the original position to the present location. What better purpose could have been served by such alleged forgery ? On the other hand the O.Ps. are the creature of statute and the organization is a public utility concerned and they shall not have any axe to grind against the complainant. The petition was filed praying for shifting before the O.P. authority. It took nearly two months for discharging the official formalities like depositing of the requisite charge, follow up inspection and shifting. They had no scope  to enquire if such petition was actually filed by Maharani Roy or any other else. We are in the one with the Ld. Ld. Lawyer  for the O.Ps. that they had acted in good faith in discharging the official course of business.  We still wonder how the complainant Maharani Roy could not fathom the alleged deep conspiracy by the tenant in shifting the meter from one place to another. Though the complainant filed separate petition praying for shifting of the suit meter to its original place from the present location, the inaction on the  part of the O.Ps. cannot come within the ambit of deficiency of service, as because they shifted the meter only before two years considering the viability and safety of the inmates. As we trace no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. we are of the view that this is a fit case for dismissal.

      Accordingly both the points are disposed of.      

            Hence,

                                    O      R      D       E      R      E        D

      That the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date is dismissed  on contest but without cost against the o.ps.

      The complainant is at liberty to file separate prayer before the O.P. authority for shifting back the  suit meter to its original place in the prescribed  proforma. Accordingly the O.Ps. are to consider the same after observing necessary formalities as expeditiously as possible.

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