In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 392 / 2010.
1) Shri Ram Sharma,
74, Brounfild Road, Kolkata-700027. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The C.E.S.C. Limited,
74, Brounfild Road, Kolkata-700027.
2) The Commercial Executive (South West), CESC Limited,
Taratola Road, Kolkata-700088. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 12 Dated 31/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Shri Ram Sharma against the o.ps. CESC Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that father in law of complainant during his life time purchased a property lying and situated at premises where complainant resides now. After the aforesaid purchase father in law of complainant became the owner of the property and started to consume electricity from the meter stood in the name of previous land owner viz. Lutfunessa Begam. This connection was domestic in nature. Thereafter, complainant being the son in law started using electricity from the meter stood in the name of Lutfunessa Begam with the permission of said land lord Uday Raj Gupta. As per complainant, the purpose of using electricity by complainant is for domestic in nature and also for earning his livelihood and he has been paying the electricity charges regularly as per the bills raised by CESC. CESC Authority all of a sudden raised a bill for the month of Aug, 2010 including the arrear bills of Rs.32,540/-. On inquiry complainant came to know that CESC authority included the said arrear dues which stood in the name of Uday Raj Gupta which has already disconnected by CESC for non-payment of the dues and the aforesaid meter was disconnected more than 4 years back. Thereafter, complainant requested o.p. to withdraw the claim of the pending dues as the complainant had or has no nexus with the aforesaid person Uday Raj Gupta as because the said person had been living in mess and enjoyed the electricity separately. CESC authority did not pay any heed to such request and used the bill in the month of Sept. 2010 asking for the payment of the said dues and with a threat of disconnection. Hence, the complainant has no alternative but to file this case.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons: -
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted fact that complainant was enjoying electricity from the said electric meter in the name of Uday Raj Gupta. But o.ps. have failed to produce any document in support of their averment that complainant has consumed the electric connection from the meter against which the allegation of outstanding dues has been made by CESC Ltd. It is also needed to mention that the complainant consumer being son in law is not the legal heir of Uday Raj Gupta, the person whose liability of outstanding dues related to electric connection has been imposed on the consumer / complainant and complainant has applied for withdrawal of arrear dues amounting to Rs.32,540/- to CESC authority which due was lying pending for more than 4 years and in the name of 3rd party viz. Uday Raj Gupta. In this regard we are referring Sub Section 2 of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 where it is mentioned “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 supplied and the licensee was not cut off the supply of the electricity”. In the instant case CESC has demanded to complainant to pay the dues of a 3rd party in relation to a meter which was not used by complainant and was disconnected more than 4 years back. O.ps. are failed to produce any document showing that the aforesaid due has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied in the bill of complainant. Moreover, o.ps. could not prove any nexus between the complainant and the 3rd party viz. Unday Raj Gupta by producing even a scrap of paper. In this regard we may refer to a judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court where the Hon’ble Court has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another reported in JT (1995) 2 SC 26 and in the case of M/s Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. and others vs. CESC Ltd. and others reported in (1996) 1 Cal HN 15 where their Lordship has held that under the law a citizen cannot be saddle with the liability of another consumer. We are also referring the judgment passed by Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2003 Orissa 131 where the court has been pleased to hold that the intending consumer cannot be made to pay the liability of the previous contracting party for supply of electricity. It is also held by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal on 31.8.07 in the case of CESC Ltd. vs. Shri Sitaram Singh (SC Case No.53/A/2007) that any person cannot compelled to pay the arrear dues of the previous occupant, if no nexus between the previous consumer of electricity in that premises and complainant shall be established by the licensee.
Considering the above discussion we are strongly of the opinion that o.ps. have made unjustified claim of Rs.32,540/- to complainant / consumer as they have utterly failed to prove any nexus between the previous consumer of electricity viz. Uday Raj Gupta and moreover, this claim is barred by Sub Section 2 of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, o.ps. have committed deficiency in rendering service and they are liable to withdraw the claim.
Hence, ordered,
That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest without cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to withdraw the claim of Rs.32,540/- (Rupees thirty two thousand five hundred forty) only with respect to the consumer no.14099041005 within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ ______SD-______ _______Sd-_____
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
