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 i.e. the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) represented by the Station Manager, Balarampur Customer Care Centre to impeach the Final Order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia (for short, Ld. District Forum) in CC/25/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent/Complainant Sri Prakash Ch. Agarwal under Section 12 of the Act on contest with certain directions upon the OP/appellant like – (a) not to demand the outstand of Rs.85,580/- in respect of Consumer Id. No. 242031216 from the complainant and not to disconnect the supply of electricity to the complainant; (b) to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that he is a resident of Balampur, Hanuman Goli, P.S.- Balarampur, Dist- Purulia, having domestic service connection of WBSEDCL being Consumer Id. No.200973852 and he has been paying the electric bills regularly.  The complainant has stated that on 15.05.2016 he along with his family members went to Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) and after two days when he returned back, his neighbour handed over him two notices vide Nos. BPL/T-28/148 and BPL/T-28/149 dated 17.05.2016 and on perusal of the same, it came to knowledge of the complainant that the OP demanded Rs.55,880/- towards OSD in respect of service connection vide Consumer Id No.242031141 stands in the name of Shyam Behari Agarwal and Rs.85,580/- towards OSD in respect of service connection vide Consumer Id. No.242031216 stands in the name of Gajanan Agarwal.  The complainant has stated that Shyam Behari Agarwal is his father and his father challenging the reading of units mentioned in the bills dated 09.11.2014, 03.02.2015, 15.05.2015 and 15.08.2015 filed a consumer complaint against the OP before the Ld. District Forum.  The service connection of Gajanan Agarwal vide Consumer Id. No.242031216 has left Balarampur sometimes in the year 2010 and the said service connection has been disconnected and the meter has been removed from the premises which is/was inoccupation of Satya Narayan Agarwal.  The complainant has stated that since 2010 no amount in respect of Consumer Id. No.242031216 has been demanded continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges of electricity supplied as per provision of Section 56(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Hence, the Respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz. –(a) a direction to the OP not to demand Rs.85,580/- towards OSD in respect of Consumer Id. No.242031216 which is time barred; (b) a direction upon OP not to disconnect the electricity from the premises of the complainant; (c) compensation of Rs.50,000/-; (d) litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

          The Appellant being Opposite Party by filing written version has stated that the complainant has been paid all bills in respect of Consumer Id. No.200975852 and there is no outstanding upto May-2006 in respect of the said consumer.  The OP has stated that the bill dated 09.11.2014 containing 5610 units in the name of Shyam Behari Agarwal was made at the time of existing of defective meter and based on previous years consumption, which is system generated and the information about outstanding dues of Rs.85,580/- in respect of Gajanan Agarwal has been given through Memo No.BPL/T-29/149 dated 17.05.2016 and to Satya Naraya Agarwal through Memo No.BPL/T-28/148 dated 17.05.2016.  The OP has also stated that the disconnection of electric connection of Sri Gajanan Agarwal was done on 10.04.2005 as per their data base record and the connection of the said Gajanan Agarwal was present in the same premises but meter was not found at the time of inspection.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OP to prefer this appeal.

          Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that in view of Regulation No.3.4.2 of Notification No.55 published in Kolkata Gazette dated 07.08.2013 the OP/Appellant being Distribution Licensee is eligible to recover from the respondent/complainant in respect of the bill of previous defaulting consumer if nexus between the previous defaulting consumer and the present consumer in respect of the said premises is proved.  By filing a brief notes of argument, the appellant has stated that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that as per present Electricity Act, 2003, for billing dispute, a consumer has to agitate his grievances before CGRO/RGRO first and thereafter, in case of dissatisfaction by any of the parties, an appeal may be preferred before the Ld. Ombudsman but when the said procedure has not been resorted to, the Ld. District Forum should not have entertain the complaint.

          Per contra, Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that in view of the provision of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act the outstanding electricity bill amounting to Rs.85,580/- should have been claimed within two years from the date when such sum become first due and in the case when the appellant has not initiated any action against the defaulter i.e. Sri Gajanan Agarwal within two years from the date of disconnection of electricity i.e. on 10.04.2005, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned.  He has further submitted that there is no nexus between the respondent and the said Gajanan Agarwal and therefore, in accordance with Regulation 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Ld. District Forum has rightly proceeded to dispose of the complaint and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.  To fortify his submission, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (4) ICC 423 (Haryana State Electricity Board – vs. – M/s. Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors.) and also a decision of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta reported in 2012 (4) CHN (Cal) 264 (WBSEDCL – vs. – Ram Krishna Tiwari).

          I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and also scrutinised the materials on record including the brief notes of arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

          It remains undisputed that the Respondent is a ‘consumer’ under the Appellant in connection with a domestic service connection being Consumer Id. No.200975752 and he has been paying the electric bills regularly. 

          Sri Shyam Behari Agarwal, father of Respondent is the holder of Consumer Id. No.24231141.  Challenging the authenticity of several bills, Shyam Behari Agarwal has lodged a complaint before the Ld. District Forum at Purulia. 

          The Consumer Id. No.242031216 was in the name of one Gajanan Agarwal, who left Balarampur long ago and the service connection stood in his name was disconnected on 10.04.2015 and the said meter has been removed by the appellant from the premises. 

          Now, the Appellant demanded the outstanding dues long after six years from the date of disconnection of supply of electricity of said Gajanan Agarwal.  Therefore, the question comes up whether such a claim is maintainable.  For proper appreciating, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the extract of provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reproduces below –

          “(2).  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this 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 supply and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”. 

          The foregoing provision makes it abundantly clear that Section 56(2) is a non-obstante Clause and operates notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.  It provides that no sum due from any consumer under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of 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 supply and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity.

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has given emphasis to the Regulation 3.4.2/WBERC/Notification No.55 and submitted that the appellant being distribution licensing has authority to collect the arrears if nexus between the previous and defaulting consumer and the new consumer is proved.   For proper understanding of the situation, it would be worthwhile to quote the Regulation 3.4.2 of W.B. E.R.C. (Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensee Relating to Consumer Services) Regulation, 2005 which provides;-

          “3.4.2 – The licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer(s) the dues for the previous and defaulting consumer(s) in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and 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”.

          The above provision makes it quite clear that the Appellant company can very well recover the amount from the new and subsequent consumer(s), the dues of the previous consumer provided it is able to prove the nexus between the previous consumer and subsequent consumer and that too within two years from the date when such sum became first due.  The appellant/OP has failed to show any nexus between the respondent and the said Gajanan Agarwal.  The said Gajanan Agarwal has left Balarampur far back and his service connection was disconnected on 15.04.2010.  Therefore, the respondent cannot take advantage by invoking the provisions contained in Notification No.55 dated 07.08.2013 citing 3.4.2.

          In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property.  Therefore, in general law, transferee of premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier.  In the case of WBSEDCL (supra) the Hon’ble High Court has observed unless the nexus is proved, the distribution licensee cannot impose any condition for payment of an outstanding dues of the previous consumer under Regulation 4.3.2 of Regulation, 2005.

          The facts and circumstances and materials on record, unerringly leads to hold that the appellant company has failed to prove any nexus between the respondent and Gajanan Agarwal.  In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint.  The order is based on proper reasoning and as such I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned Final Order is hereby affirmed.

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