C o n s u m e r  C o m p l a i n t  No. 98/2022

Order No. 05

31.05.2022

Today is fixed for further admission hearing.

The record is taken-up for further admission hearing. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant in full.

On scrutiny of record, it appears that on 17.05.2022 the complainant took an adjournment and the case was fixed on 26.05.2022 for further admission hearing but on 26.05.2022 no step was taken by the complainant due to Resolution dated 24.05.2022 of the Local Bar which was valid up to 29.05.2022 on the ground that Ld. Advocates for the Local Bar were refrained from attending the Commission and the case was fixed on 31.05.2022 for further admission hearing for the above reasons including as per Resolution dated 30.05.2022 of the Local Bar.

On perusal of the complaint and document so filed by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has filed this case praying for passing a necessary order to direct the O.P.-WBSEDCL to connect the new electric connection  at the premises of the complainant along with compensation and litigation cost. The complainant admitted in his complaint that he has filed title suit before the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Purba Bardhaman on the ground of right of adverse possession of the premises-in-question though not specifically mentioned the description of the premises or there is no separate schedule describing the said premises. No paper or document has been filed by the complainant to show that he has possession of what premises or to show any paper regarding the offer of payment on behalf of the O.Ps. Even there is no paper submitted on behalf of the complainant to show that the O.Ps offered the

                                                                                                                        Contd. p-2

quotation for electric connection and he promised to pay.       

The decision cited in 2004 1 CPR 369 and the decision 1995 O Supreme (Cal) 118 are submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

On perusal of the said decisions, we find that the facts and circumstances of those cases are not applicable to the present case. Furthermore, there is no paper submitted on behalf of the complainant to show that he became the ‘consumer’ under the O.Ps. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ at all under the O.Ps. Apart from it, from the complaint, it is clear that the Title Suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Purba Bardhaman in respect of the so called premises for adverse possession.

In this connection, it may be said that the complainant might have taken recourse to the Civil Procedure Code with a permission before the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Purba Bardhaman for application of electric connection in the disputed premises.

Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that this case cannot be admitted.

Accordingly, it is

ordered

that the case is not admitted and the prayer of the complainant for admission is also hereby rejected. Thus, the case is disposed of.

In view of this Order, the M.A. being No. 26/2022 is also disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant on free of cost.

Member                                                                                                President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                                           D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman