Date of filing: 21.09.2017
Date of hearing: 23.04.2018
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of opposite party to impeach the judgment/final order dated 10th March, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Birbhum at Suri (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 127/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the respondent Shri Ajit Mondal under Section 12 of the Act with a direction upon the opposite party/appellant to effect the electric service connection to the complainant’s submersible pump (SMP) in his agricultural land within one month from the date of order.
The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that being a resident of Village – Heruya, P.S.- Sainthia, Dist. – Birbhum he had applied for electric service connection in his submersible pump for irrigation in his agricultural land. After receiving the application, the opposite party made an enquiry and sent a quotation of Rs. 6,693/- dated 20.12.2011. Accordingly, complainant deposited the quotation amount on 10.02.2012. The complainant has alleged that despite receipt of the quotation amount, the O.P. did not give effect the electric service connection in respect of his submersible pump. On 13.06.2015 the complainant issued notice through his Advocate addressing to the Station Manager, Ahmedpur Customer Care Centre with a request to cancel the electric bill and to give effect electric service connection. After receiving the said notice, O.P. sent a reply but did not adhere to the legal notice dated 13.06.2015. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) to direct opposite party to effect the electric service connection in the premises of the complainant; (b) an order directing the O.P. to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; (c) an order directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost etc.
The appellant being opposite party by filing written version has stated that the complainant initially applied for temporary electric service connection for submersible pump in his agricultural land and the service connection was effected in due time. Thereafter, the complainant applied for permanent service connection and deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 6,693/- but at the time of processing the said service connection, it was found that there was an outstanding bill of Rs. 15,738/- for the month of March-April, 2012 in the name of the complainant. The O.P. requested the complainant to make the outstanding bills but as the complainant did not make payment of the sum the connection could not be effected.
After assessing the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the opposite party as indicated above. To assail the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the material fact that there is/was an outstanding due of Rs. 15,738/- for the month of March-April, 2012 and in the written version it was clearly indicated that until and unless the outstanding bills are paid, the permanent connection cannot be given. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,738/- as outstanding is the public money and if the order is sustained, the public at large will suffer. He has further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant as the appellant could not effect the service connection due to outstanding due of Rs. 15738/-. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has finally submitted that unless the impugned order is set aside, the appellant will be seriously prejudiced.
Per contra, Ms. Pooja Shukla, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that there was an outstanding bill for the month of March-April, 2012 but the appellant did not claim the same within two years as provided in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. She has further contended that when the appellant did not claim the outstanding bill within two years the Ld. District Forum has rightly allowed the petition of complaint with a direction upon the appellant to give effect the electric service connection in the SMP of the respondent and therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with.
I have travelled through the documents filed by the parties and considered the submissions made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Undisputedly, respondent being a resident of Village – Heruya, P.S.- Sainthia, Dist – Birbhum had initially applied for temporary electric service connection for functioning of submersible pump in his agricultural land and the service connection was effected in due time. Subsequently, the respondent had applied for a permanent connection and to that effect a quotation dated 20.12.2011 was raised amounting to Rs. 6,693/-. However, despite payment of the said amount the electric connection was not effected in the submersible pump of the respondent.
The materials on record indicate that the temporary electric connection was disconnected on 01.06.2012 for non-payment of bills. The respondent had applied for new electric service connection but it is quite apparent that there was an outstanding bill of Rs. 15,738/- for the month of March- April, 2012 in the name of the respondent.
The Ld. District Forum has observed thus-
“The complainant has filed a copy of computer generated electric bill which has been sent by the O.P. to the complainant on 06.05.2015 stating outstanding amount after adjustment of Rs. 17,000/-. The question is to – ‘why the bill had been sent to the complainant after three years?’”
Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has given emphasis for non-claiming of the outstanding amount within two years as stipulated in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. For proper understanding and appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 56 of Electricity Act which is recorded below:-
“S. 56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment:-
- Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling or electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:
Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest:-
- an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
- the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,
Whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under the section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”.
The provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 authorises the licensee or the generating company to cut off the supply of electricity if any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him. For the purpose of cut off or disconnection any electricity supply line or other works, the distribution company (herein W.B.S.E.D.C.L) has a right to recover such charge or other sum by filing a suit and the said suit must be filed within two years from the date when such sum becomes first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity. The provision of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act provides a limitation for recovery of the dues by the licensee or the generating company. This provision has an overriding effect and it is clearly provided that no sum due from any consumer under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due.
Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that when the appellant did not take appropriate steps to recover all the dues from the respondent within a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due, the appellant cannot claim the said amount. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that failure to file a suit within two years to recover the outstanding amount does not necessarily mean that a consumer without paying any outstanding dues will get a new connection after expiry of just two years on the plea that the outstanding amount was not recovered within two years.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties I find force in the submission of Ld. Advocate for the appellant because initially the respondent had applied for temporary electric connection and subsequently when he applied for a new electric service connection for a submersible pump at his agricultural land, a new cause of action has arisen. The failure on the part of the appellant to recover the amount of Rs. 15,738/- within two years does not necessarily mean that the respondent shall have right to obtain a new electric connection without making payment of the outstanding bills of Rs. 15,738/-.
Considering all the above and after giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the materials from its proper perspective. In other words, the impugned judgment being a faulty one, it should be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The impugned judgment/final order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/127/2015 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Birbhum at Suri for information.
