The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a consumer of WBSEDCL and his Consumer ID no. 163033883. His complaint is that Op has given connection in the name of the Ratna Ghosh using his ID. Copmplainant raised protest . Later on complainant sent notice to the oP. It is also stated that OP no.3 are making conspiracy to drive out the complainant from the premises. The complainant has suffered much loss due to the action of the OP no.1 and 2. And also against OP. no.3. Hence this prayer of compensation of Rs.0 lakh and give connection in his name.
Op no.1 no. has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all the material allegations. Op no.1 and 2 states that there is a Civil case between the complainant and OP no.3 with the suit premises. The change of name in respect of the concerned meter was taken place on 3.12.2013 but this case has been filed on 20.9.2016 i.e. after two years and the case is barred under the limitation. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service and the case is dismissed.
Op no.3 filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. Fact is that the electric meter was in the name of Amal Kumar Dey who had one son and one daughter , name of the son is Ashok Kumar De and name of the daughter Ratna Ghosh, the Op no.3. Op no.1 sent notice for disconnection due to , due amount of the bill. Then Ratna Ghosh paid the said amount and Op no.1 gave electric connection to Ratna Ghosh and Ratna Ghosh using that meter has been paying the bill and this oP no.3 is the cosharer of the property and the electric meter is sited in the land of the OP no.3. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.
In this case the complainant has filed electric bill in the name of Ashok Kumar Dey for the year 2012 and both sides have five mainly Op no.1 filed payment receipt in the name of Ratna Ghosh. Consumer ID 163033883 and both sides have filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of Argument and photo copy of Title suit no. 9787 of 2014.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by all the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
In the Evidence in chief both sides have stated their case . Op no.1 and 2 take the plea of non maintainable because the electric meter connection was disconnected in the year 2012 and there was payment due in the name of Ashok Kumar De. That payment was made by the Op no.3. There is case pending between the complainant and Op no.3 . The Op no.3 has been consuming the electricity since reconnection on 3.12.2013 and present case has been filed on 20.9.2016 . Hence this case as per OP no.1 and 2 is not maintainable. Further more there is pending cases between the complainant and the oP no.3 and meter connection is situated in the portion of the Op no.3. So the contention of the complainant regarding using of ID no. of predecessor in interest Ashoke Kumar Dey in the name of Ratna Ghosh is not tenable in law and fact of this case. We are of opinion that there is no merit in the argument of the complainant . As such, the case is dismissed. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 157 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
