District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

 (Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee              - President

Shri Siddhartha Ganguli                      - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 13/2016

Sri Dhiman Dey

S/o Sri Dhirendra Nath Dey

Vill.: Khidirpur Dhighi Para,

PO & PS: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                                                            ………………Complainant(s)

V-E-R-S-U-S

1.   The D.E. & Divisional Manager,

       Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division

      West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

      P.O : Beltala Park, P.S: Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.

2.   The Assistant Manager & Station Manager,

      Balurghat Customer Care Centre

      West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

      P.O & P.S: Balurghat,

      Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.               …………………Opposite Parties

Ld. Advocate(s):

For complainant                      …………… - Shri Samit Bhawmick &

                                                                   - Shri Somen Saha

For OP Nos. 1& 2                   …………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee

Date of Filing                                       : 08.06.2016

Date of Disposal                                 : 20.07.2016

                                                                                                Contd…P/2

Judgment & Order  dt. 20.07.2016

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer under W.B.S.E.D.C.L. It is stated that the father of the complainant had a service connection from the W.B.S.E.D.C.L., during the continuation of the said connection the complainant along with his brothers obtained separate connections and accordingly the complainant became a consumer being his service connection No.401123691.

After getting connection the complainant started to pay the electric bill according to the demand made by the OPs. But the OPs without giving him any opportunity to the complainant disconnected the electric connection on 5.4.2016 causing immense hardship to the family members of the complainant. The complainant on numerous occasions visited the office of the OPs and he was informed that since there is huge amount due in respect of service connection of the father of the complainant and as such the connection was disconnected. On the basis of the said fact that the complainant has prayed for restoration of the electric connection standing in the name of the complainant and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

The OPs contested the case by filing a written objection and subsequently supplementary objection was filed in the said written objection. It was stated that one service connection was found in the disputed premises in the name of the complainant’s father Dhirendra Nath Dey of which the outstanding amount of Rs.1,19,356/- remained unpaid and for non-payment of such outstanding dues the connection was disconnected. It was stated in the written objection that the complainant after getting connection started to supply electricity from his connection in the said premises and as such the connection was disconnected on 5.4.2016 an intimation was sent to the complainant and another intimation was given to the father of the complainant that the electric meter was in good condition and reading of the meter was

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

correct and the complainant’s father was asked to liquidate the outstanding dues as per Regulation 55/W.B.E.R.C. dt. 7.8.2013 sub clause 3.4.2 states that the licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer in respect of the dues of the previous consumer, if a nexus between the previous and defaulting consumer in respect of the premises is proved. The complainant being son of Dhirendra Nath Dey and suppressing the materials of fact regarding the outstanding due is liable to pay the outstanding amount in respect of dues made by his father and as such there is no illegality committed by the OPs.

It was further stated that father of the complainant never disclosed in an affidavit that there was any dues in respect of new service connection and the providing of service connection is made by different wing of the OPs and due to mistake the electric connection was provided without getting the outstanding amount from the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the above the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined:-

1. Has the complainant got electric connection in respect of the same premises where father of the complainant had the electric connection?
2. Has the father of the complainant failed to pay the electric bill to the tune of Rs.1,19,356/-?
3. Whether the complainant is liable to pay outstanding dues of his father?
4. Was there any nexus between the father and the son by providing electricity to his father?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
6. Was there any deficiency in rendering service on the part of OPs?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant along with his two brothers obtained electric connection after payment of necessary charges and providing of all sorts of information to the OPs. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant brought to my notice regarding the electric bills issued in favour of the father of the complainant wherefrom the Ld. Lawyer emphasized that the bills were sent not in regular manner and the consumption recorded in the electric bills does not reflect actual consumption made by the father of the complainant vis-à-vis the yellow card provided to the consumer does not in conformity with claim made by the OPs. In some of the bills it can be found that the consumption was made by the said consumer i.e. father of the complainant which was never consumed by him more than 100 units per month but in a bill claim made by the OPs that the consumption was made in respect of during the period from 7.3.2014 to 25.2.2015 was 13239 units which was fabulous one and the claim made by the OPs fictitious one.

The Ld. Lawyer further emphasized that the complainant never defaulted in payment of electric bill in spite of payment of electric bills the connection was disconnected illegally. Therefore, Ld. Lawyer emphasized for restoration of the electricity and imposition of cost due to sufferance faced by the complainant’s family.

Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that point raised by the complainant that the meter was defective and consumption was shown in excessive cannot be agitated before this Forum since the separate Forum is there whereby the father of the complainant could have raised his plea that the meter was defective for which the consumption was shown excessive. The Ld. Lawyer for the OPs emphasized that at the time of swearing an affidavit never disclosed that there had already an electric connection and the amount due towards the consumption of electricity was more than Rs.1,19,000/- such suppression of material facts can give rise to take action by the OPs against the complainant for which the OPs had to disconnect the electricity for realization of the

                                                                                                Contd…P/5

amount and as per Regulation 3.4.2 of WBERC dt. 7.8.2013 the licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer dues of the previous and defaulting consumer in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and defaulting consumer and a new consumer in respect of the premises is proved. Here in this case the connection was obtained by the complainant in respect of the same premises where the connection of father of the complainant existed and admittedly the amount due was not disclosed by the complainant in the affidavit sworn by his father at the time of obtaining the electric connection such suppression of material of facts has given right to the OPs to disconnect the electric connection for non-payment of dues stood in the name of father of the complainant.

            Considering the submission of the respective parties it is admitted fact that Sri Dhiman Dey the complainant son of Sri Dhirendra Nath Dey along with his two brothers namely Sri Pradip Dey and Sri Satyajit Dey obtained electric connection from the OP No.1 on furnishing the documents including an affidavit sworn by father of the complainant whereby it was stated by the father that he has got no objection if the connection is provided to the complainant. From the materials on record it is crystal clear that electric connection was taken in the same premises admittedly which belongs to the father of the complainant. It is also admitted fact that father of the complainant failed to pay the electric bill dues to the tune of Rs.1,19,356/- and since the said outstanding payment was not made electric connection of father of the complainant was disconnected. After obtaining the electric connection the complainant and his brothers who had also taken connection separately made collusion with each other including the father of the complainant and they formed a nexus with an eye to deprive the OPs to get the outstanding dues and for that purpose without revealing the outstanding amount became due to the father of the complainant.

                                                                                                Contd…P/6

            As per the provision of Regulation No.55/ WBERC dt. 7.8.2013 sub clause 3.4.2 the licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer(s) the dues of the previous consumer / 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. Here in this case the complainant is son of Sri D.N. Dey all the sons are staying in the same premises belonging to father of the complainant and his brothers and thereby they cannot evade their responsibilities of payment of the outstanding dues. If the dues are paid by brothers equally the OPs cannot have any objection regarding restoration of electric connection of the complainant and his brothers.

            So far as rulings as cited by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and concerned I hold that those rulings are not applicable in this particular case.

            Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is hereby held by us that the complainant and his brothers must liquidate the outstanding dues of their father equally and for convenience of payment the complainant is being given easy monthly instalment for payment of the said arrear dues. Since, the outstanding dues is to the tune of Rs.1,19,356/- and the complainant and this two brothers will have to pay to the tune of Rs.39,785/- each and for convenience of their payment and considering their predicament not enjoying electricity for last few months the complainant and his brothers are directed to pay the initial amount of Rs.10,000/- within 5^th August, 2016 and the rest amount is to be paid by them within 10^th day of each succeeding months after adjusting of the outstanding amount and last installment is to be paid by them of Rs.9,785/-. If the payment is made by the complainant and others as per direction given herein above and if father of the complainant wants to have the restoration of connection, and on  payment of the usual charges the OPs should restore the electric connection after receiving the entire outstanding amount.

                                                                                                Contd…P/7

            Thus all the points are disposed accordingly.

             Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the petition of complaint CC No.13/2016 is allowed on contest without any cost. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.39,785/- towards the share of the outstanding amount of his father and he is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- within 5^th August, 2016 and after receiving the amount the OPs should restore the electric connection within 3 days from the date of receive  of the said amount. The complainant is further directed to go on paying rest amount in 2 (two) equal installments of Rs.10,000/- each and rest installment is to be paid by him to the tune of Rs.9,785/- within 10^th  day of each succeeding month commencing from the month of September, 2016.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

            Dictated & corrected

            …………………….…….                                                        

            (Sambhunath Chatterjee)                                                      

                      President

            I concur,

            ………...……                                                 

 (S. Ganguli) 

               Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-