Date of Filing – 04.03.2016

Date of Hearing – 15.02.2017

PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 490/2015.  By its order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by Respondent under Section 12 of the Act on contest against the Appellants with the direction upon the Appellants to reconnect the electric line of the Respondent being Consumer Id. 11020316 within one month from the date of order, failing which to pay Rs.50/- per day as punitive damages till realisation.

          The Respondent herein Smt. Laxmi Debi Karmakar being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that she applied for new electric connection to the Seth Pukur Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL.  On receipt of the application, the OP no.2 inspected the premises and being satisfied installed new service connection on 21.04.2013.  Suddenly on 12.08.2015 some persons came to the house of the Complainant and disclosed them as staff of Seth Pukur CCC of WBSEDCL and threatened the Complainant for disconnection on the ground that there was another service connection in the name of her husband named Sri Pranab Kumar Karmakar being Con. Id. No.153240697 and an amount of Rs.3,70,951/- was outstanding for which the said line was disconnected.  It has also been mentioned that in the notice dated 10.08.2015 query was made to the complainant as to why a false statement was made that there was no existing electric service connection at that premises.  The Complainant has stated that on receiving the notice dated 10.08.2015, she has given reply but on 19.08.2015 the OPs disconnected the service connection.  Hence, the Respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) an order directing the OPs to recall the notice dated 10.08.2015; (b) an order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and (c) Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost etc.

          The Appellants herein being OPs by filing written versions have stated that the Complainant had applied for service connection on 22.02.2013 but she has not mentioned that there was other service connection which has been disconnected.  Subsequently, in course of inspection, it was found that there was a previous electric service connection/meter in the name of Sri Pranab Kumar Karmakar i.e. the husband of the Complainant and the said service connection was disconnected on 23.08.2011 due to non-payment of huge amount of electrical changes of Rs.3,70,951/- and the Complainant suppressed this fact during new service connection at her premises.  Hence, the complaint should be dismissed.

                    After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with the directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OP nos. 1 and 2 to approach this Commission with the instant appeal.

          We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants.  Despite notice Respondent did not turn up.   Under compulsion, we proceeded to hear and decide the appeal in absence of the Respondent.

          Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and on going through the material on record, it would reveal that the Respondent being Complainant mentioned his address at Jessore Road, Barasat, Dist- North 24 Parganas had applied for new service connection at her premises on 22.02.2013.  According to procedure A of the application, it has to be mentioned whether there are any other service connection or any disconnected electricity line exists or not.  The Respondent did not mention the same and on the basis of such declaration, as the Respondent deposited all the required fees, service connection was installed in the premises of the Respondent on 21.04.2013.  Subsequently, it has come to the notice of the Appellants that there was a service connection in respect of the said premises in the name of Sri Pranab Kumar Karmar i.e. the husband of the Respondent and the said electric service connection was disconnected on 23.08.2011 for non-payment of electric charges of Rs.3,70,951/-.  On 10.08.2015, a notice was issued to the Respondent asking her to submit a report why in procedure A, a declaration was made that there was no electric connection and there was no outstanding dues pending of the electric bill at that premises. 

      The facts and circumstances indicate that on the basis of such declaration of the Respondent, the service connection being Consumer Id. 11020316 was installed.  However, there was another electric meter in respect of the said premises in the name of the husband of the Respondent being Consumer Id. 153240697 and the said connection was disconnected on 23.08.2011 for no-payment of outstanding bill of Rs.3,70,951/-.

    The address mentioned by the Respondent in the petition of complaint appears to be vague.  The Respondent did not mention the number of premises or the postal index number of the place where the electric line in the name of the Respondent has been installed.  Had it been disclosed it would have quite clear whether the Consumer Id. Stands in the name of the Respondent and the Consumer Id. stood in the name of the husband of the Respondent was same and identical or not.  The Respondent has simply avoided to disclose the same and has mentioned a vague address named Jessore Road.  Judicial notice may be drawn to the fact that Jessore Road has its existence for more than 100 Kms. right from Belgachhia (Kolkata) to Petrapole i.e. border of Bangladesh.  Therefore, it is evident that the Respondent has tried her level best to suppress the truth before the Ld. District Forum.  The Respondent has done so to enjoy electricity by depriving the WBSEDCL the public money of Rs.3,70,951/-.  It implies that the Respondent did not approach the Ld. District Forum with clean hand.

     The acts and conduct of the Respondent prompted us to refer Paragraph-2 of the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 (Dalip Singh – vs. – State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) which runs thus –

    “In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.  Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth.  They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.  In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice which with tainted hands, is not entitled to relief, interim or final”.

     In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) – vs. – Jagganath (dead) & Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to observe in Paragraph-5 thus –

“.........one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.  We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the Court is being abused.  Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and others unscrupulous persons from all works of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely.  We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.  He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation”.

     The facts and circumstances and materials on record clearly indicate that the Respondent in connivance with her husband to grab the huge public money amounting to Rs.3,70,951/- has suppressed the material fact in disclosing the actual address and further has made false statement in procedure A at the time of application for connection of electric supply.  This important fact has been ignored by the Ld. District Forum and the reason assigned by the Ld. District Forum that the service connection of the Complainant has been installed at Jessore Road but not at 13/1 Jessore Road, Barasat is not at all acceptable because Jessore Road, Barasat is not a small road or area for identification and the Respondent has not mentioned the premises no. where the electricity was to be installed.  In our view, the Ld. District Forum has misdirected itself in passing the order and as such the impugned order should be interfered with.

    Considering all the above, the appeal is allowed exparte but without any order as to costs.

The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside.

Consequently, CC/490/2015 stands dismissed.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.