West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/35/2020

Ratan Adhikari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Supernatant of W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Kirnahar - Opp.Party(s)

Acinta chattapadhay

08 Apr 2021

ORDER

Today the instance case is fixed for submission hearing.

Ld. Advocates the complainant is present.

Hd the 1d Advocate for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the case.

Peurused the complaint/petition and relevant documents filed by the complainant.

It is evident from the comptaran petition and other materials on record that the time is filed by one Ratan Adhikari, who happens to be the brother of Nata Kumar Adhikimi, smee deceased, and the

sald Noba Kumar Adhikari died and leaving behind legal heirs.

Further il appears from the case recont at a menerite pump stands in the name of sand dessed Nahe Kumar Adhari and he had been paying electricity bil regalarly, being Consumer ID No 521073897.

It is further evident from the ce record that atter the demise of Naha Kumar Adhikari his fel hus med to pay the mit and they made prayer before the electncy department to connect the electricity connection in respect of said submersible pump.

It is alleged by the complainant that even after taking anch prayer the WR SEDCL thresting the complainant and other f that to pay the hill at the OP will disconnect the electricny line It is relevant to be morsioned here that as per the provision of Section 2(5) (V) of the CP Aut 2019 Come Complaint may be filed by the ingut bics of the consumer.

to case of the death of the original Consumer but here the complainant, as it appears from the cuse recard that he is not the legal heims of deceased Naha Kumar Adhikari and the present complaina las specifically mentioned that he has been residing separmely in a separate mess.

In our view, is there is any dispute between the electricity D. (WBSEDCL) and the legal heirs of Nana Kumar Adhikari, the legal heim of Nabu Kuna Adhikari could come before the District Commission for any grievance But under no circumstance the present complainant can be considered as Consumer therefore.

In our view the present complainant is not a consumer and the complainant Petition deserves to be dismissed.

Hence,

 

it is ordered that the consumer Complainant being No CC-35/2020 is dismissed without being admitted.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each at free of cost.