CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal 18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027 Complaint Case No. CC/198/2017 1. Sri Panu Das S/O Lt. Lal Mohan Das 4/35, Rajendra Prosad Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Dist. South 24 Pgs. Kol-33 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Sri Narayan Biswas S/O Lt. Anath Bandhu Biswas 4/35, Rajendra Prosad Colony, P.s. Jadavpur, Disssssst. South 24 Pgs. Kol-33 2. Divisional Engineer,C.E.S.C. JADAVPUR dIVISION, 6, Mndevilla Gardens, P.S-Gariahat, Kolkata-19. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Ayan Sinha MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 04 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement Judgment : Dt.4.1.2018 Shri S. K. Verma, President This is a complaint made by Sri Panu Das, S/o Lt. Lal Mohan Das, residing at 4/35, Rajendra Prosad Colony, P.S.-Jadavpur, Dist.- South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 033 against Sri Narayan Biswas, s/o Late Anath Bandhu Biswas, 4/35, Rajendra Prosad Colony, P.S.-Jadavpur, Dist.- South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 033, OP No.1 and Divisional Engineer, CESC, Jadavpur Division, having its office at 6, Mandevilla Gardens P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the O.P. No.1 and OP No.2 for electric service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant and further direction on OP No.2 to give a new electric connection in favour of the Complainant and for payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost. Facts in brief are that Complainant as per the agreement is a monthly tenant under OP No.1, Sri Narayan Biswas on a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- since 1.4.1999. Thereafter as per agreement the rent amount was increased to Rs.1,200/- plus Rs.200/- as electric charges. OP No.1 suddenly refused to accept the rent from the Complainant without any notice. Complainant filed a civil suit against the OP No.1 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 1st Court at Alipore. Ld. Court after hearing both the sides was pleased to pass an order ?the defendant hereby restrained from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law till disposal of the suit?. OP No.1 landlord continuously disturbed the Complainant and also disconnected the electric connection. Complainant lives with his family members in the said premises without any electricity which is impossible to live. Complainant on several times prayed before the CESC, Jadavpur Division, OP No.2 for a new connection in the name of the Complainant. But, OP No.2 always refused. So, Complainant filed this case. OP No.2 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. OP No.2 has further stated that Complainant is not a registered consumer and as such he cannot file this complaint. Further, OP No.2 has stated that OP is not responsible for the installation of the new meter in the name of the Complainant and electricity can only be supplied after compliance of necessary formalities which Complainant has not done. There is no deficiency in service and so the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP No.1 has also filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has also further stated that an eviction suit is pending against the Complainant before the 1st Civil Judge at Alipore which was filed by OP No.1 and Complainant is contesting the instant suit but did not agitate about the allegations in this eviction suit. OP No.1 has further state that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint. On these grounds this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Decision with reasons Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1 filed questionnaire and Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OPs filed a petition for treating the written version as evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs filed affidavit-in-reply. Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. In this regard, it appears that admittedly Complainant is a tenant over the premises and an eviction suit is pending against the Complainant which has been filed by OP No.1. Now, the question arises as to whether Complainant is entitled for a direction upon the OP No.2 for installing electric meter in the name of the Complainant and for supply of electricity. One copy of deposit of rent is filed in order to establish that Complainant is depositing rent amount before the rent Controller. This itself reflects that Complainant is a tenant. Furthermore, the rent controller challans and one copy of document which has been filed are illegible and so this cannot be taken into consideration for settling the grievances of the Complainant. Affidavit-in-chief is filed wherein Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OP No.1 has filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief wherein OP No.1 has put the question to the Complainant ?did you file any document to prove that you have prayed before the C.E.S.C. Ltd. i.e. OP No.2 for new electric connection? and also ?did you file the correspondences between the Complainant and OP No.2?. To these two questions Complainant has replied that he has filed correspondences but he has not answered that he has filed any document to show that before the OP No.2 for supply of electricity. Accordingly, since there is a dispute between Complainant and OP No.1 and Civil cases are pending, we are of the view that OP No.2 cannot be directed to install new electric meter and it will be owner who may supply electricity to the Complainant as earlier. However, the reliefs the Complainant has sought do not appear to be worthy of being allowed. Hence, ordered CC/198/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest. [HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Ayan Sinha] MEMBER