Date of filing : 16.07.2018
Judgment : Dt.12.03.2020
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Jayanti Sarkar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Regional Station Manager, CESC Ltd., (2) The Asstt. Manager (Commercial) CESC Ltd., (3) the Customer Accounts Manager, CESC Ltd. and (4) The Grievance Redressal Officer, West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that the Complainant is a consumer under the OPs having Consumer No.09127081099 ID No.09001080399 and has been paying electricity bills to the CESC regularly towards the consumption of the electricity. On 21.4.2018 Complainant was astonished to see the bill of an amount of Rs.2,99,690/- dt.19.4.2018. She raised objection against the said inflated bill before the CESC. Complainant thereafter came to know from the office of the OP that separate consumer meter bill amount being consumer No.09127081016, bill No.04181 dt.6.5.2018 for Rs.2,99,697/-, has been added with the bill of the petitioner. Complainant has no connection with the said consumer number. So, Complainant requested the OPs to issue a fresh bill against the consumer No. belonging to her for her consumption. But OPs wrongfully, disconnected the petitioner’s electric connection on 11.7.2018. So, the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the OPs to restore the electric connection, to forgo the bill dt.6.5.2018, 5.6.2018 and 4.7.2018 and to issue fresh bill for the consumption by the Complainant, and to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint copy of the electric bills, letter written by the Complainant to the CESC on 21.4.2018, 27.6.2018 and 12.7.2018.
OPs have contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint contending inter alia that the supply of electricity under consumer No.01927081016 (closed A/C) at premises No.35/2, Chanditala Main Road, Kolkata-53, through Meter No.4385603 stands in the name of one Partha Sarkar. Said supply was disconnected on 30.6.2014 due to non-payment of electricity bill. After adjusting with the Security Deposits of the said Consumer of Rs.83,028.45, outstanding amount payable by the said consumer remains Rs.2,99,273/-. On 21.3.2018 during an inspection carried at the said premises being No.35/2, Chanditala Main Road, it transpired that the said consumer namely Partha Sarkar died in February, 2015 and he was the son of the present Complainant. It is further contended that during local investigation it revealed that premises No.35/2 Chanditala Main Road has been renumbered as 50B, Chanditala Main Road. The Meter No.5136160 was installed on 20.10.2014 in favour of the Complainant on receipt of an application for a new meter from her on 26.9.2014. And due to difference in premises No. her application was duly processed without demanding dues of the said premises from her at that point of time. Complainant being the mother of the said consumer Partha Sarkar was the beneficiary of the supply of electricity and the meter stands in the name of her son, which was disconnected due to non-payment of Rs.2,99,273/-. It is also contended that the electricity of the Complainant has been disconnected for non-payment of monthly electricity consumer bills as per Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and thus the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
During the course of trial both parties have adduced their respective evidences followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto and ultimately argument has been advanced.
So, the following points require determination :
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion.
It is claimed by the Complainant that she is a consumer under OPS having consumer No.09127081099, ID No.09001080399 and paying the electricity bill to CESC regularly. But, OP sent a bill of Rs.2,99,690/- dt.19.4.2018 which was received by the Complainant on 21.4.2018. She raised objection and learnt subsequently that the consumption of electricity in a separate meter being consumer No.09127081016, bill No.04181 dated 06.05.2018 for Rs.2,99,697/- has been added with the bill of the Complainant which is illegal. OPs ultimately for non-payment of the said bill for consumer No.09127081016, disconnected the electricity of the consumer No.09127081099 of the Complainant.
On perusal of the written version filed by the OPs, it appears that the OPs have not disputed and denied that the amount of Rs.2,99,697/- claimed from the Complainant was for the outstanding amount payable in respect of another consumer No.09127081016 through meter No.4385603 standing in the name of one Partha Sarkar. It is contended by the OPs that due to non-payment of electricity bill by the said Partha Sarkar, in consumer No.09127081016, supply was disconnected and after adjustment with the security deposit, outstanding amount payable by the said consumer remained Rs.2,99,273.11. Said Partha Sarkar is the son of the Complainant and he died in February, 2015.
It is further contended by the OPs that the electric meter No.4385603 Consumer No.0912708016 and which was disconnected for non-payment of electric bill, was installed at premises No.35/2, Chanditala Main Road. So, when the Complainant applied for new meter stating premises No.50/B Chanditala Main Road, due to the difference in premises number, she was not demanded the electricity dues in respect of the meter standing in the name of her son since deceased. According to OPs, on local investigation on 21.3.2018, it was learnt that the premises No.35/2, Chanditala Main Road, has been renumbered as 50/B, Chanditala Main Road. But, in support of their claim that premises No.35/2 has been renumbered as premises No.50/B, Chanditala Main Road, OPs have not filed any document. Since, it is the specific claim of the OPs that the two premises are one and the same and after the disconnection of the meter No.4385603 on 30.6.2014, Complainant applied for the new meter in the same premises on 26.9.2014. OPs have to establish that the Complainant was a beneficiary and enjoyed the electricity in the said meter standing in the name of her son. It is true that the due to the relationship between the Complainant and Partha Sarkar (since deceased) being mother and son, argument on behalf of the OPs about nexus between them cannot be totally ruled out but since before this Forum, there is absolutely no material that the Premises No.50/B, is in effect premises No.35/2, Chanditala Main Road and has been renumbered, claim of the OPs that the two premises are same, cannot be accepted. The photograph filed by OPs having written premises No.50/B Chanditala Main Road, will be of no help to the OPs. OPs ought to have taken step for report from Municipal Corporation or from the appropriate authority that the two premises are same and premises No.35/2 has been renumbered as 50/B, but no such step has been taken by the OPs. It is not that there could not be any document in this regard. Necessary process has to be exhausted by the appropriate authority to renumber a premises in a locality. So, it can safely be presumed that either OPs withheld the document or the claim of the OPs is without any basis.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant has also argued that as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, OPs are not entitled to recover the sum due after the period of two years and he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020 in case of Assistant engineer (DI), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. VS Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla. In the said case of Assisstant Engineer (DI), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Sub-Section (1) of Section 56 confers a statutory right to the Licensee Company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the consumer neglects to pays the electricity dues.
Statutory right is subject to the period of limitation of two years provided by sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act.
The period of limitation of two years would commence from the date on which the electricity charges became “first due” under sub-section (2) of section 56. This provision restricts the right of the Licensee Company to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues by the Consumer, unless such sum has been shown continuously to be recoverable as arrears of electricity supplied, in the bills raised for the past period.
If the Licensee Company were to be allowed to disconnect electricity supply after the expiry of the limitation period of two years after the sum became ‘first due’, it would defeat the object of Section 56(2).”
In this case, admittedly, electricity charges became ‘first due’ before June, 2014. There is no document filed by the OPs that OPs showed the said due continuously as recoverable by raising outstanding bill. On the contrary, it is evident from the materials in the record that the bill for the past period raised and demanded for the first time vide bill dt.19.4.2018 i.e. after three years and ten months. It is true that the OPs have contended that they learnt that the two premises being one and the same in 2018 but what prevented them from raising the bill for such outstanding or for past period in respect of the same old premises being 35/2, has not been explained. So, since demand has been made for the first time after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation of two years, OPs are not entitled to disconnect the electric connection of the Complainant in the Consumer No.09127081099 and ID No.09001080399. However, it may be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above mentioned case law of Assistant Engineer (DI) Ajmer (Supua) has also held that “Section 56(2) however does not preclude the Licensee Company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired. It does not restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee Company for recovery of a supplementary demand”.
So, in view of the discussions as highlighted above, Complainant is entitled to the relief of restoration of electric connection. However, in this context, it may be mentioned here that vide an interim order dt.12.10.2018, the supply was restored till final disposal of this case subject to payment of current bill. So, Complainant is entitled for a direction upon the OPs not to disconnect the electric supply of the Complainant in respect of consumer No.09127081099 for non-payment of the outstanding dues in respect of consumer No.09127081016. In the given facts and situation of this case, we find no justification to allow compensation as prayed by the Complainant.
Hence
ordered
CC/428/2018 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed not to disconnect the electric supply of the Complainant in respect of Consumer No.09127081099, ID No.09001080399 for non-payment of outstanding dues in respect of consumer No.09127081016. OPs are further directed to raise separate bills dt.6.5.2018, 5.6.2018 & 4.7.2018 in respect of the consumption by the Complainant of supply of electricity in consumer No.09127081099 within 30 days from the date of this order.
