Date: 12-02-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 16-08-2011 in Case No. 309/2010, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, whereby the complaint case has been allowed in part on contest.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

Case of the Complainant, briefly stated, is that it applied for an electric connection before the OP on 12-11-2008 and paid required application fee for the same on the very same day.  After a long time from the date of said application, the OP on 12-03-2010 asked the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,74,156/- as LPSC of the previous owner though the Complainant has no nexus with the said erstwhile owner.  More so, the previous owner has paid his outstanding before selling the schedule property.  That apart, the said claim is time barred.  Although it petitioned before the OP several times, it did not yield any positive result.  Finding no other alternative, it filed the instant case before the Ld. District Forum to get service connection.

The OP contested the case by filing WV whereby it was contended that the Complainant applied for a new commercial electric connection on 12-11-2008. Thereafter, the OP inspected the site on 19-11-2008 when one Smt. Munmun Das raised objection before the OP in writing stating that a civil suit in respect of the landed property being Title Suit No. 350/2004 and another proceedings are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta being no. 954/2008.  The previous user, i.e., Uma Cold Storage was a bulk consumer under the OP on same plot and said connection was disconnected since the year 2006 and due to non-payment of outstanding L.P.S., the Complainant was asked to pay 50% of the total outstanding charges of Rs. 7,48,312/-, but they failed.  Due to non-payment of arrear dues and in view of the objection raised by Smt. Munmun Das, the co-sharer of the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainant, the application of the Complainant could not be considered. 

Point for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any factual/legal infirmity in the impugned order or not.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that on 12-11-2008, the Complainant applied for commercial and industrial meter.  Previously, the erstwhile owner of the property, Uma Cold Storage, did not liquidate the outstanding energy bill, for which its service connection was disconnected in the year 2006.  The Complainant purchased the undivided property in which civil litigation is pending, and gave an affidavit to pay the dues accrued on it, which it cannot back out at this stage.  A written objection has been filed by one Smt. Mummun Das against effecting electric supply to the Respondent.  Further, the Respondent cannot be treated as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it profusely intended to take service connection for commercial and industrial purpose.  In fact, Mr. Dilip Chamaria, Director of the Respondent company, swearing an affidavit stated that he purchased half of the property.  Therefore, a notice was served upon him vide letter dated 12-03-2010 asking him to pay at least 50% of the total outstanding amount, i.e., Rs. 3,74,156/- to amicably settle the matter, but the same has not yet been paid and instead the complaint case was initiated by it. 

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that as the electricity to be obtained is not for re-sale purpose, it cannot be treated as a commercial transaction. Further, Mr. Shaktipada Maity of Uma Cold Storage paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,75,855/- on 03-10-2008.  The affidavit relied upon by the OP/Appellant was executed only to get electric connection at the time of making application for effecting service connection  and nothing should be imputed on it and the Respondent did it under compulsion.  If any outstanding still stands there in respect of the erstwhile consumer, i.e., Uma Cold Storage, the Respondent is in no way liable for the same. There is also no bill showing outstanding to the tune of Rs. 7,48,312/-. The Ld. District Forum has only directed the Appellant to effect service connection to the Respondent, without any compensatory award, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be upheld.

Notwithstanding whatever contained in a statue, taking undue advantage of the helplessness of a prospective consumer, compelling one to bear the brunt of other’s delinquency, is reminiscent of robbing Peter to pay Paul, which cannot be the be all and end all of any service provider, particularly if that happens to be a PSU company.   Outstanding due in respect of Uma Cold Storage did not reach such a gigantic level overnight.  Apart from disconnecting the service connection in the year 2006, the Appellant did nothing to realize the outstanding due from actual defaulter resulting which, the quantum of late surcharge jumped leaps and bounds with the passage of time.  Bluntly speaking, the kind of firmness/concern shown by the Appellant to realize the outstanding revenue post-receipt of an application from the Respondent Complaint for a service connection at the proposed site, for the reasons best known to the Appellant, was visibly missing giving virtual walkover to the actual defaulter to escape without clearing all its outstanding dues (as claimed by the Appellant). Had the Appellant been diligent enough in its pursuit towards timely augmentation of revenue, they would surely crack the whip before the matter come to such a sorry pass.  That being the position, the Appellant cannot escape its responsibility for the present situation. 

Although it is claimed by the Appellant that they owe an amount of Rs. 7,48,312/- from the actual defaulter, M/s Uma Cold Storage as LPSC, no such bill has been placed on record by the Appellant to corroborate its claim.  On the other hand, it transpires from the photocopy of letter dated 03-10-2008, issued by M/s Uma Cold Storage addressed to the Circle Manager of WBSEDCL that in terms of Quotation No. SM/F&A/2008-09/50/1867 dated 08-09-2008, issued by 52 Empowered Committee of the Appellant, they intended to repay the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 1,75,855/- and the photocopy of money receipt of even date, issued by the Appellant, shows that M/s Uma Cold Storage paid Rs. 1,75,855/-, i.e., the entire quotation money.  There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant issued any counter-letter challenging such statement of the said Uma Cold Storage.  No plausible explanation is put forth by the Appellant as to how they arrived at such whooping figure of Rs. 7,48,312/-.  More so, under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, no amount is recoverable from the consumer after a period of two years unless it has been continuously shown as recoverable as arrears of electricity charges.  That being the statutory provision, it requires no emphasis that the Appellant ought to comply with the same, but the Appellant has miserably failed to show that they had been religious in the matter of compliance of such mandatory statutory provision.  Also admitted is the fact that the Respondent purchased the plot in question from the erstwhile owner by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance on 02-07-2008.  Therefore, we do not find any nexus between the present owner and previous owner.    As regards the objection of one Smt. Munmun Das about pendency of  the stated Title Suit  and Contempt Case, we have not come across any restraining order from any competent Court of Law.  In fact, while issuing the offer letter of settlement to the Respondent dated 12-03-2010, the Appellant did not utter a single word as regards pendency of any civil suit before any Court of Law. Also important to note that as a co-sharer of the undivided disputed plot in question, the Respondent has equal right over the plot in question vis-à-vis other co-sharer(s). That being the position, we do not see any obstacle whatsoever in the matter of effecting service connection to the Complainant. 

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent, but without any order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.