Date of Filing – 02.08.2017

Date of Hearing – 24.10.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 110/2015.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Opposite Party/Appellant to provide electric connection to the Premises in question for which complainant/respondent has already applied within 60 days and the complainant/respondent is directed to submit no objection certificate or consent letter duly signed by the owner in premises in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Judgement by the office of OP/appellant.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that being a resident of Nityananda Ashram Road, Natunganj, P.O.+ P.S. + Dist- Bankura had applied for new connection vide application No.2001889060.  After enquiry, the OP issued one quotation on 02.07.2015 asking for deposit of Rs.400/- for service connection charges, Rs.584/- for security deposit and Rs.208/- for cost of meter and on the same date, the complainant deposited the full amount through E-payment.  However, the OP did not arrange for supply of new electric connection and in this regard all the requests and correspondences including legal notice dated 04.09.2015 went in vain.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum against the appellant on the allegation of deficiency in services and prayed for – (a) to direct the OP to pay penalty as per Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, (b) Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (c) Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

          The Appellant being OP by filing a written version disputed the claim and stated that previously there was a connection in the name of Rama Devi Mishra and there was outstanding dues of Rs.64,514/-.  Subsequently, another connection was obtained by one Sri Niranjan Sharma and a bill of Rs.36,714/- is still due and payable. The complainant deliberately suppressed the entire materials facts lodged the complaint which is liable to be dismissed.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the opposite party as indicated above.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that on account of outstanding dues in respect of two bills amounting to ERs.64,514/- and Rs.36,714/- by the other two co-owners of the self same property, the electricity line could not be given as there was nexus between the persons against whom outstanding dues are pending and the present respondent.  In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred me the Regulation No.3.4.2 of WB Electricity Regulatory Commission being No.55/WBERC published in the Kolkata Gazette dated 07.08.2013.  He has also referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Paragraphs – 12, 13 & 14 reported in (2009) 1 SCC 210 (Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) and submitted that when there is direct nexus in between the previous consumers against whom bills are outstanding and the respondent, the Ld. District Forum should not have passed the order impugned and as such the said order is liable to be set aside.

          The respondent, who appeared in person simply submits that being a person of low income group, he cannot be overburdened for the fault of others and prayed for affirmation of the impugned order.

          I have considered the rival contention of the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

          Undisputedly, the Respondent/Complainant has been living in her paternal house at Nityananda Ashram Road, Natunganj, P.O.+ P.S. + Dist- Bankura had applied for a new electric connection and on the basis of quotation issued by the appellant, he paid Rs.400/- for service connection charges, Rs.584/- for security deposit and Rs.208/- for cost of meter on 02.07.2015.  However, the appellant company did not make any arrangement to supply the said electric line.

          The materials on record indicate that the respondent deposited the money through E-payment by taking advantage of computer generated system.  The grand-mother of the respondent namely Rama Devi Mishra (Sharma) was the consumer of electricity in respect of the said premises in question under Consumer Id. No.232005276 and her electric connection was disconnected on 13.06.2000 for non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs.64,514/-.  Subsequently, Niranjan Mishra i.e. the uncle of the respondent somehow obtained new electric connection in his name at the said premises vide Consumer Id. No.323005277 but the said connection was also disconnected on 03.06.2015 for non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs.36,883/-.  The respondent suppressing all those facts has applied for new connection through online on 02.07.2015.  The facts and circumstances indicate that there was direct nexus between the respondent and the defaulting consumers being closed relation to each other.

          The Regulation has a statutory force and in Regulation No. 3.4.2 of WBERC prescribes – “The licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer (s) the dues of the previous and defaulting consumers in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and the defaulting consumer(s) and the new consumer(s) in respect of the same premises is proved.  The onus of proving a nexus, if claimed by a licensee, shall lie on the licensee”.

          In Paragraph-12 in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed – “ when the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity.  It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the Premises .......:”.  In Paragraph-13 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Court proceeded to observe – “A. Stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.  In the absence of such a stipulation, and unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electric supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues.....”.

          The respondent/complainant has got the property from his father by inheritance and enjoying the usufruct of it and as such the respondent must also bear the brunt of the property and he cannot shift his burden to the common man i.e. tax payers money.  The Ld. District Forum proceeded in a wrong direction without taking into account the Regulation which has statutory force and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above.  In passing the order, the Ld. District Forum has placed reliance to a decision of Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2004 Orissa 74.  The said decision relates to repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910.  In fact, after enactment of Electricity Act, 2003 a sea-change has been made under which liability of a consumer is twofold – Civil Liability to pay the arrear bill and to face penal action. 

          For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is modified to the extent that only on payment of outstanding dues of Rs.64,514/- + Rs.36,883/- =1,01,397/- the appellant/OP to provide the service connection to the premises of the complainant within 7 (seven) days thereof.

          With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura for information.