SMT. SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

This case is initiated by the Complainant, Sk. Mohommad Ekbal Hossain, S/o Sk. Islam of Vill. Deulbarh, Dist. Purba Medinipur for restoration of his electric connection.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, he got the scheduled property from his grandfather by way of an oral gift and made a dwelling house thereon in the year 2012.  It is also stated that his father executed a registered Deed of Gift in his favour bearing no. 1040 dated 24-03-2015 and the said land has been demarcated by amicable settlement in between the Complainant and other co-sharers of the land.  The Complainant applied before the OP for electrification of his dwelling house and complied with necessary formalities as directed by the OPs.  After receiving the said application, OP inspected the site and on being satisfied about the feasibility of providing such connection, asked the Complainant to deposit requisite money which the Complainant duly deposited against proper receipts.  Later on, the OP provided service connection to the dwelling house of the Complainant and also installed a meter bearing no. L3905510 and issued a yellow card for the purpose of noting meter reading.  Allegedly, the OP No. 1 sent a letter bearing Memo No. KCCC/Dispute/2770 dated 27-02-2015 falsely/illegally demanding a sum of Rs. 2,02,900.78 stating that the same remains outstanding in respect of the premises situated at Vill. Deulbarh.  It is claimed that although the Complainant left no stone unturned to satisfy the OP about his separate identity vis-à-vis his father, OP was far from being removed.  Ultimately, the OP No. 1 disconnected Complainant’s electric connection on 20-07-2015. Hence, this case.

Case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that the Complainant applied for a domestic new service connection through on-line portal suppressing the fact that an outstanding of Rs. 2,02,900.78 was lying pending in respect of the premises concerned in the name of his father, Sk. Islam Ali.  Subsequently, he deposited the usual charges on 29-09-2014 and accordingly, service connection was provided to the premises of the Complainant on 26-01-2015.  It is stated that a police case has been initiated by Kolaghat P.S. being Case No. 306/2014 against the father of the Complainant, i.e., Sk. Islam Ali alleging theft of electricity in the said premises.  When such matter came to surface, it was immediately taken up with the Complainant vide Memo dated 27-02-2015, whereby the Complainant was duly cautioned about the prospect of disconnection of his service connection in case of non-payment of outstanding amount.  However, the Complainant did not take any positive step to clear the dues.  Accordingly, a disconnection order was issued.  As the Complainant strongly resisted such endeavor, an FIR was lodged against the Complainant.  Thereafter, another disconnection order was issued to the staff of the OP No. 1 on 16-07-2015 and the concerned connection was disconnected with police help on 20-07-2015. 

Despite service of notice upon the OP No. 2, it did not turn up to defend its case.  Hence, the case was heard ex parte against it.

The main issue involved in this case is whether the Complainant is liable to pay the outstanding dues of his father as demanded by the OP Electricity Board? Differently put, whether the OP has committed any deficiency in service by disconnecting the service line of the Complainant over non-payment of arrear electric charges of his father?

Decision with reasons

Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant primarily stressed upon the factum of his separate identity vis-à-vis his father, Sk. Islam.  It is claimed that he has got no nexus with his father and lives under separate roof and mess.  Pointing out the bunch of correspondences the Complainant made with the OP, it is asserted by the Ld. Lawyer that all his endeavour to convince the OP about Complainant’s separate identity went in vain as the OP was determined to realize the alleged outstanding dues of his father from him by hook or crook.

It is claimed by the Ld. Lawyer of the OP No. 1 that the Complainant has not put forth even a solitary piece of document to establish his separate identity vis-à-vis his father.  He alleged that, with the sole intention of escaping payment of outstanding amount, the Complainant in connivance with his father, applied for fresh service connection. Therefore, by demanding the arrear amount of Rs. 2,02,900.78 from the Complainant, that has not been paid by the father of the Complainant, it is contended that, OPs have not committed any illegality.

In the wake of rival contentions of the parties concerned, in a bid to unearth the truth, we have extensively toured through the documents on record.  Our careful scrutiny of the documents brings out the following intriguing facts:-

First, the FIR was lodged against the father of the Complainant by the OP Electricity Board over alleged theft of electricity on 23-07-2014 and the Complainant made application for getting electric connection on 23-09-2014. Secondly, vide its letter dated 12-03-2015, the OP Electricity Board expressed its dissatisfaction about the futility of documents to establish Complainant’s separate identity from his father and Complainant’s father executed the registered Deed of Gift in favour of the Complainant on 24-03-2015.

It is hard to believe that all the above incidents were mere coincidence and not even remotely connected to the lodging of FIR against the father of the Complainant by the OP Electricity Board.  Rather, the manner in which a flurry of activities took place following lodging of an FIR against the father of the Complainant, the mala fide intention on the part of the Complainant only becomes loud and clear.   

Not wholly unrelated in the overall construct is the fact that the Complainant has not placed on record any document/evidence to show that his father resides in a separate dwelling house.  In fact, even an affidavit has not been filed from the side of his father to buttress such fact. At the same time, significant no less has been the absence of due clarity as to how did he survive without electricity from the year 2012, when he built a premises on the piece of land received from his grandfather till 2015, when he applied for service connection at his dwelling house. 

The position of the law, more specifically, Clause No. 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 is quite clear– when there is a nexus in between the previous owner and new occupier/owner, the latter would be under obligation to clear the dues, if he wants connection/restoration of the electric connection.  In our opinion, if arrear of electric charges remains outstanding in respect of the electricity supplied, it would encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or the other in respect of such arrears and evade the consequences of non-payment of electricity charges, e.g., disconnection/non-resumption of supply, which cannot be supported under any circumstances.  

In this regard, we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, passed in C.O. No.3398/2010 in the matter of WBSEB Vs. Smt. Madhabi Ghosh.

Insofar as the licensee, i.e., the OP Electricity Board is fully empowered to recover from a new and subsequent consumer the electricity dues of the premises and defaulting consumer in respect of the same premises where there is a clear nexus in between the previous and defaulting consumers and the new consumer in respect of the same premises, we see no illegality in the action of the OP Electricity Board to ask the Complainant to cough up the money that his father has not paid and given the fact that the Complainant has not made any endeavour to clear the dues despite being warned of the consequences of non-payment of arrear dues,  no fault can be attributed to the action of the OP No. 1.

All these facts lead us to infer that all along there has been a direct nexus in between the Complainant and his father, Sk. Islam and as such, the Complainant cannot evade payment of outstanding electricity dues notwithstanding the same has not been cleared by his father.

Be it that may so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the OP license company demanded a huge sum of money from the Complainant at one go and that it has not come clean as to the steps taken against the actual defaulting customer, save and except filing an FIR, to recover the due amount.  As such, we deem it fit and proper in the interest of justice to direct the OPs to restore the service connection to the premises of the Complainant.  However, OPs would be at liberty to recover the outstanding sum through the electric bills relating to the electric meter of the Complainant consumer in 36 monthly installments.

Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that c. C. No. 47/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2.  OPs are directed to restore the service connection to the premises of the Complainant within 15 days hence.  OPs would be at liberty to realize the outstanding dues stand in the name of Sk. Islam, father of the Complainant, in 36 monthly installments through the electric bills that would be raised in respect of the electric meter of the Complainant, i. d., Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.