S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/174

DATE OF FILING : 12.05.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 11.08.2009

APPELLANT


Mr. Pradyut Sinha
1-(Old-16) Subhas Nagar 1st Bye Lane
Kolkata-700 065.

RESPONDENTS

1. M/s. CESC Ltd.
CESC House, Kolkata-700 001.
2. The District Engineer
CESC Ltd., North Regional Office
226, A & B, A.P.C. Road
Kolkata-700 004.
3. Smt. Ruby Saha
W/o. Krishnapada Saha
32 (Old-16) Subhas Nagar 1st Bye Lane
Kolkata-700 065.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. D.B.Chowdhuri, Ld. Advocate (Res.1&2)
Mr. D.Halder, Ld. Advocate (Res. 3)

: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement dt. 16.4.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 161 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the petition of complaint thereby directing the OP/CESC Ltd. to provide electric connection with a new meter type-Commercial to the complainant on compliance of all formalities and on payment of dues within a period of one month thereof. There was also a direction upon the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to provide police protection to the men of the OP/CESC on getting requisition and on payment of charges, if any, they will go to the premises for the purpose of inspection and also for installing the meter.

The Complainant/Respondent No. 3 filed the petition of complaint before the Forum for installation of a new meter in her shop-room after payment of requisite fees and observing all the formalities. The complainant was also backed up by an order of the Executive Magistrate, North 24 Parganas giving her protection from private Respondents in the matter of installation of the meter in her tenanted shop. It was the specific case of the complainant that the OP No. 2 informed her that due to objection raised at the site it was not possible to provide and install the electric meter as prayed for by the complainant. Being dissatisfied with such action on the part of CESC the complainant filed the petition of complaint for redressal.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material allegations of the complainant contending inter alia that there was no deficiency at the instance of the Ops. The Ops tried their level best to install the meter at the tenanted premises of the complainant, but as the men of the Ops were not permitted to inspect the site it was not possible for the Ops to carry out the work and install the meter in question.

The matter was heard by the Ld. District Forum in presence of the complainant and the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte against the OP No. 3, i.e. the Appellant, and after due hearing Ld. District Forum disposed of the complaint case in the manner discussed above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as mentioned above.

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum has ignored the actual legal proposition and has wrongly adjudged the complainant to be a Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, when it is the specific case of the complainant/Respondent No. 3 that she was running a business in a tenanted premises and that she did apply for a meter of commercial type, it was quite improper and unjust on the part of the Ld. District Forum to adjudge the complainant a Consumer and dispose of the petition of complaint in her favour. This is totally against the interest of the Appellant and has certainly prejudiced the interest of the Appellant, which is not permissible under the law. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also drawn our attention to the effect that the Ld. District Forum did not specifically mention as to which part of the premises the meter will be installed by the CESC. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged that the impugned judgement is ambiguous and does not depict the actual state of affairs and as such, the same should be set aside after allowing the Appeal.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record, pleadings of the parties and the decisions referred to including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant/Respondent No. 3 applied for installation of a meter of commercial type after payment of requisite fees and also after observing all the legal formalities. But as there was some objection and disturbances, the men of CESC could not install the same as they were prevented from inspecting the site in question and being aggrieved the complainant instituted the petition of complaint. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 namely, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, has put up a case to the effect that they were not at all responsible for non-installation of the electric meter as their men were prevented from inspecting the site in question and as such, the plea of deficiency on the part of the said Ops does not arise at all. On perusal of the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly adjudged the complainant/Respondent No. 3 to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the Ld. District Forum was also justified in upholding the case of the complainant once it was an admitted position that she paid requisite fees and observed all the legal formalities in her obtaining the meter of commercial type.
In this connection, we also take note of the fact that the Ld. District Forum has categorically traversed the pleadings of the parties and has considered the case of respective parties from all possible angles in the background of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and Electricity Act and as such, has arrived at a just and proper decision. If that be the position, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which is accordingly affirmed. Under the circumstances, the Appeal fails.

Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands affirmed.

MEMBER MEMBER