Date of filing : 15.09.2017

Date of hearing  : 05.03.2018

            The instant appeal U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as“ the Act “ ) is at the behest  of Opposite Party  to impeach the Final Order/judgement dated 30.05.2017 made by the  District Consumer Redressal Forum, Purulia (for short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 10 of 2017 whereby the consumer complaint  initiated by Respondent Shri Samir Dutta U/s. 12 of the Act was allowed on contest  with  the directions upon the opposite Party/Appellant   to provide new electric service connection in the premises of the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- etc.

        The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld .District Forum alleging that being a  resident of Namopara, Purulia he had applied for electric connection in his premises and on the basis of quotation, he deposited Rs. 200/- as service connection charge and Rs. 249/- as security money on 29.06.2016. However, despite  repeated  requests,  the OP/ WBSEDCL did not provide the electric  connection. Hence,  the  respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including installation of new service connection at his residence.

        The appellant herein being Opposite Party by filing written version resisted the averment of  the  complainant on  the plea that there was an outstanding dues of Rs.42,215/- in the same premises in the name of mother of the complainant but the complainant did not disclose the same while applying for new connection and  the same was established while taking inspection. The complainant was told to make payment of the said outstanding dues for getting new connection  but he did not comply with the same. The OP has asserted that the said old electric line was in the name of Kalyani Dutta, who is mother of the complainant and the same was disconnected due to non-payment of Rs.42,215/-.

        On evaluation of the materials on record including the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties and having heard the Ld. Advocates, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with cer tain directions upon  the OP/WBSEDCL as indicated above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said  order, the Opposite Party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

        Despite service of notice, sole respondent has not appeared to contest.

        Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondent intentionally did not disclose the material fact that in the same premises there is an outstanding dues of Rs. 42,215/- in the name of his mother Kalyani Dutta and due to non-payment of bills the said service connection was disconnected. He has further submitted that the Ld. District Forum has also failed to consider that when  the outstanding amount relates to non-payment of electric bills by the mother, the  application of  service connection in the name of son by itself indicates nexus and no further evidence is required to prove the nexus. In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to Notification No.55/WBERC dated Kolkata, the 7th August, 2013 published in the Kolkata Gazette.

        I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced  by the Ld.Advocate for the appellant.

        Undisputedly,  the  respondent being son of late Kalipada Dutta of N. C. Dasgupta Road, Namopara, Purulia had applied for new electric connection  at his premises and on the basis of quotation he deposited Rs.200/- as the service connection charge and Rs. 249/- as security money in favour of Licensing Authority. However, in the petition of complaint,  respondent did not disclose that in respect of the said premises there was another service connection in the name of his mother and the said connection was disconnected by the appellant for non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs.42,215/-.

        For better appreciation of the situation, it would be pertinent to  record the relevant provision of Notification No.55 which provides  -

“ 3.4.2  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 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 materials on record indicate that the defaulting consumer i.e. the mother of the respondent has been living in the same premises where  the respondent intended to install a new electric connection. In order to disprove the statement of appellant/OP in written version, the  respondent/complainant had an opportunity to amend the petition of complaint by denying the said fact  or atleast to file an affidavit to that effect. The Ld. District Forum disbelieved the contention of appellant simply on the ground that they have failed to produce any authentic or relevant documents in support of  their claim. The nexus between the mother and son , particularly when they had been living in the same house, does not require any proof. Needless to say, an  evidence does not necessarily mean only direct evidence and presumption can also be drawn basing upon indirect or circumstantial evidence. In any case, the Ld. District Forum has observed that there was an outstanding dues of Rs.42,215/- in respect of old connection stood in the name of mother of respondent in the same premises.

        Considering the above, it appears to me that the Ld. District Forum misdirected itself in considering the matter from the real perspective. In other words, the impugned order based on the reasoning which has no sanction in the eye of law . In other words, the appeal being meritorious one should be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

        For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed ex-parte without any order as to costs.

        The impugned judgement /final order is hereby set aside.

        Consequently, CC/ 10/2017 stands dismissed.

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