Shri Ashoke Kumar Pal, Hon’ble President:-
The matrix of the instant complaint case in short is that the complainant purchased a house from the O.P. No. 1 PNB through e-auction sale vide deed No. I-373422 dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure-A) along with delivery of possession. The complainant applied for a new electric connection and paid Rs. 762/- as Application charge (Annexure – B). As the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L did not give any electric connection, reminder was sent to the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L on 30.08.2022 (Annexure-C). It was the version of the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L that already two numbers of previous consumer ID exists in the said premises in the name of 1) Gour Mondal – Consumer ID : 113190748, outstanding amount of Rs. 9,821/- and 2) Smt. Subasi Mondal – Consumer ID :101902334, outstanding amount of Rs. 13,616/- and the total outstanding amount comes to Rs. 23,437/- (Rs. 9,821/- + Rs. 13,616/-). It was also the version of the O.P. No. 2 that unless and until the previous outstanding amount has been cleared no new connection can be given in the said premises. Complainant sent a letter to the O.P. No. 1 PNB on 24.09.2022 to clear up the outstanding electricity bill (Annexure – D). Complaint was also filed before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, South 24 Parganas to solve the dispute through mediation. But ultimately no fruitful result can be achieved. Subsequently, on 14.11.2022 the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L requested the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,477.04 paisa/- for Smt. Subasi Mondal and Rs. 4,762.02 paisa/- for Sri Gour Mondal under one time waiver scheme (Annexure – E) and the complainant after payment of the same to the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L on 17.11.2022 amounting to Rs. 6,478/- for Smt. Subasi Mondal and Rs. 4,727/- for Sri Gour Mondal, got the new electricity connection. The complainant had to pay under compulsion the outstanding amount of Rs. 11,205/- (Rs. 4,727/- + Rs. 6,478/-) which was actually the outstanding of the previous owners of the premises. Accordingly, the complainant filed the instant complaint case seeking refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,205/- from the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L along with other reliefs.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing their separate W/V contending that the claims of the complainant are all false. The specific case of the O.P. No. 1 PNB is that Sri Gour Mondal was the loanee and took loan from the O.P. No. 1 PNB mortgaging his land with structure but failed to repay the same. As per provisions of the banking rules the O.P. No. 1 PNB took possession of the land with structure. Thereafter, E-auction was conducted by the O.P. No. 1 PNB in which the complainant participated and purchased the property at a consideration of Rs. 15,76,000/- being the highest bidder. Bank authority receiving the full consideration amount, issued sale certificate in favour of the complainant along with delivery of the possession of the property in her full satisfaction and proper identification. A sale deed was also executed in favour of the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 PNB denied the liabilities of payment of outstanding electricity bill of the previous owners as the property was sold on “As Is Where Is Basis” and “As Is What Is Basis” and “Whatever There Is Basis”. So the complainant cannot claim any amount from the O.P. No. 1 PNB regarding her payment of outstanding electricity bill of the previous owners of the property. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 PNB does not arise at all. The O.P. No. 1 PNB also denied the other material averments of the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.
The O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L contested the case by filing W/V separately contending that the claims of the complainant are all false. The specific case of the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L is that the complainant applied for a new electric connection at her new premises and duly paid the quotation amount on 20.05.2022. By letter dated 16.09.2022 the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L intimated the complainant that unless and until the previous outstanding dues were cleared, no new connection can be given in the said premises. Thereafter, the complainant paid the said two revised bills under “One time waiver scheme” on 17.11.2022 and thereafter on 19.11.2022 the new electric connection has been provided at the premises of the complainant. It was contended by the O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L that a complaint relating to the billing dispute is required to be lodged before the GRO (Grievance Redressal Office) or CGRO (Central Grievance Redressal Office) and thereafter before the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of GRO or CGRO in accordance with the provisions of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. Reference has been made to the Regulation 3.5 of notification No. 55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013. The O.P. No. 2 W.B.S.E.D.C.L also denied the other material averments of the petition of complaint and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons :-
Point No.1 :-
On perusal of the case record along with copies of documents, it appears that the complainant purchased the property in E-auction from the O.P. No. 1 PNB and paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 15,76,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 PNB against which sale certificate and delivery of possession of the said property was given to the complainant.
The complainant applied for a new electric connection in her purchased property and paid the quotation amount on 20.05.2022 to the O.P. No. 2 / W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer as defined U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
As such, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 :-
Both the Points No. 2 & 3 are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and as they are interlinked.
It appears that the instant complaint case has been filed mainly with a prayer for getting refund of the outstanding electricity bill of the previous owner of the property of the complainant which has been paid by her before getting new electric connection at her purchased premises.
In this connection the O.P. No. 2 / W.B.S.E.D.C.L. referred a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No. 2109-2110 of 2004 dated 19.05.2023 wherein it was decided as follows :
- Duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to such charges and compliances stipulated by Electric Utilities as part of application for supply of electricity.
- Duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to owner or occupier of premises - 2003 Act contemplates synergy between consumer and premises - Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, owner or occupier becomes consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by Electric Utilities.
- For application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’, applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to same premises for which electricity was already provided - even if consumer is the same, but premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection.
- Condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of 1948 Act requiring new owner of premises to clear the electricity arrears of previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have statutory character.
- Scope of regulatory powers of State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners.
- Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with objects of the 2003 Act.
- Rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in plenary statute providing for creation of such charge.
- Power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against defaulting consumer is independent of power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of 2003 Act.
- Implication of expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of property offered for sale with regard to any liability for payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities.
- In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution, Electric Utilities directed to waive outstanding interest accrued on principal dues from date of application for supply of electricity by auction purchasers.
Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred herein before we are of the view that the complainant purchased the property in E-auction from the O.P. No. 1 PNB on “as is where is basis” which means that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of property offered for sale with regard to any liability for payment of dues like service charges, electricity dues, for power connection and taxes of the local authorities.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the O.P. No. 1 PNB does not have any liability to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the property sold in E-auction on “as is where is” basis Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 also clearly stated on those points that new owner of premises is to clear electricity arrears of previous owners as a pre-condition to availing electricity supply will have statutory character.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant being the new owner of the premises is to clear the arrears of previous owner as a pre-condition to availing electricity supply which the complainant already done and got the electricity supply by the O.P. No. 2 / W.B.S.E.D.C.L. So, no question arises to get back the amount of arrears which the complainant already paid before getting the electricity supply connection by the O.P. No. 2 / W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Therefore, considering all aspects we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant.
Thus the Points 2 & 3 are also decided in favour of the O.Ps. and against the complainant.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the nature of the case we pass no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
That the final order will be available in the following
President
