Dt. of filing- 13/03/2018
Dt. of Judgement- 09/10/2018
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, President
This is a complaint filed u/s. 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants namely (1) Ershad Ahmed (2) Fayaz Ahmed and (3) Aminunnessa alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party namely District Engineer, CESC Ltd.
Complainants ‘case in brief is that the complainants are the owners of the property being Premises No. 116/2D, Karl Marx Sarani, P. S. Watgunge, Kolkata – 700 023 by inheritance. Their predecessor Md. Moinuddin has acquired the said premises in a Partition Suit being T.S. 4 of 1989. Complainants applied for supply of electricity in the said Premises, on 19.01.2018, as there is no electric connection but Opposite Party after inspection of the Premises, by their letter dated 29.01.2018 expressed inability to install a separate service connection in the portion of the Premises of the complainant. As there is no service connection in the Premises, complainants are suffering from various ailments. Thus this complaint is filed by the complainants for directing the OP to install a new meter in the name of the complainants.
Complainants have annexed copy of the judgement passed in T.S. 4 of 1989, letter dated 20.01.2018 and 29.01.2018 sent by OP, copy of the death certificate of Md. Moinuddin and some I.D. Cards and also some documents issued by the Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy . Copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 14.02.2018 sent on behalf of the complainants is also filed.
Opposite Party filed the written version contending inter – alia that complainant No.1 and complainant No. 2 separately applied for the service connection. Further on an inspection on 27.01.2018 by the Office of the OP, it revealed that a MVAC Service connection was already existing in the Premises. They cannot provide another service connection due to safety point of view. Three numbers of live meters under Consumer No, 1402501400, 140251500 and 1402501600 already exists. So the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In course of evidence, complainants and O.P filed their respective examination–in-chief on affidavit. They declined to file any questionnaire . So on 25.09.2018 , argument was heard.
Points of determination
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?
- Are the complainants entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Both these points are taken up together for comprehensive discussions.
According to complainants, they have inherited the property. Their Predecessor –in-interest had acquired the same, in a Partition Suit. Said claim of the complainants about Partition is supported by the copy of judgement passed in T.S. No. 4/1989 and the map annexed therein. There is no material before this Forum that no Partition was ever effected. So by the said judgement and Map, complainants have acquired right over the Premises separately by inheritance. OP even though have claimed that the meters already exists in the said Premises but failed to file any document that those meters or service connections stand in the names of these complainants or that they are the beneficiaries to those existing meters. They have not even filed any document to show that those three consumer I.D. as stated in the written versions are actually there in the Premises in question. Supply of electricity is a necessity. So since there is no contrary material before this Forum from the side of the OP that there already exists service connection in the name of these complainants or the meter allegedly exists in the Premises is also enjoyed by this complainants, we find that the complainants have been able to establish their case and thus entitled to installation of a separate connection after observing all the legal formalities, on payment of requisite fee, in their residential Premises.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/124/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite Party is hereby directed to install a meter in the names of the complainants in the Premises as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint petition within two months from the date of this order on payment of requisite charges.
