Dt. of filing- 30/11/2017
Dt. of Judgement- 13/02/2020
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This complaint is filed by the complainant namely Dr. Dharmendra Sharma under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties ( referred as OP hereinafter ) namely (1) The head ( SBU South ) ,CESC Ltd, (2) General Manager (LT) CESC Ltd. (3) Grievances Redressal Officer ( CESC Ltd.) and (4) District Engineer, CESC Ltd, Regional Office, alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the complainant in short is that he is the owner of the Premises being No. 162/A/78, Lake Garden, Kolkata – 700 045 and he was having a domestic consumer Meter No. 07120098018 at the said Premises. On 31.08.2017 he received a notice regarding liquidation of Ex-consumer N o.07120098018 of an amount of Rs. 24,170/- which was replied by the complainant through his Ld. advocate. By another letter dated 09.10.2017 OPs alleged that if the payment was not cleared, the electricity line of domestic consumer No. 06032224004 in respect of Premises at 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata would be disconnected. No outstanding was payable in respect of domestic consumer no.06032224004 installed at 167, Rash Behari Avenue. But on 14.11.2017 at around 9.30 in the morning, electricity was disconnected in respect of residence at 167,Rash Behari Avenue and electric meter was sealed by the men/engineer of the OP company and only on payment of Rs. 24,170/-, said electric line at 167, Rash Behari Avenue was reconnected at around 1.30 p.m. on the same day. So being harassed and suffering mental agony, complainant served a letter dated 14.11.2017 upon OPs demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation but OPs paid no heed and thus the present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complainant, copy of letter dated 31.08.2017 and 09.10.2017 sent by the OPs and reply sent by the complainant dated 26.09.2017 and 26.10.2017, copy of electric bill for May 2014, Docket No. 11749051 dt.15.11.2017, copy of notice dated 14.1.2017 sent to the OPs by the complainant through his Ld. Advocate.
OPs have contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations. It is contended by the OPs that on receipt of the application for a meter supply from the complainant, OPs provided a new meter on 06.12.2006 at Premises No. 162/A/78, Lake Gardens. The supply of electricity of the meter no. 3673375 at Premises No.162/A/78 was disconnected on 11.06.2014 for continuous non-payment of monthly bills raised on actual and correct registration of Meter No. 3673375. Aft e r disconnection of the said meter bearing No. 3673375 consumer No. 0712009818, outstanding dues were partly adjusted with the security deposit and on 31.08.2017 OP issued a demand notice to the complainant for necessary payment of balance outstanding dues of Rs. 24,170.62 but as the complainant avoided in making payment, another demand notice along with the bill was sent to the complainant for payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 24,170/- within 31.10.2017 failing which it was stated that OPs would be constrained to disconnect the supply at Premises 167, Rash Behari Avenue. Since the complainant failed and neglected to make payment of the said outstanding dues, Opposite Parties disconnected the supply at 167, Rash Behari Avenue and on payment, it was restored. So the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of evidence, complainant filed affidavit in chief but no questionnaire was filed by the OPs and to this effect, a petition was also filed. OPs thereafter filed evidence which was followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto.
Ultimately arguments have been advanced by both sides. Complainant has also filed brief notes of argument.
So the following points require to be determined :-
- Whether there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for ?
Decision with reason :
Both the points are taken – up together for a comprehensive discussion.
It is claimed by the complainant that he has a electric meter being domestic consumer No.06032224004 at premises No. 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata - 700 019. There has never been any outstanding dues in respect of payment of electricity bill in respect of the above-mentioned meter at Premises No. 167, Rash Behari Avenue. A notice dated 31.08.2017 was sent by OP to the complainant claiming Rs. 24170.62 as outstanding dues in respect of Ex-consumer No. 07120098018 at Premises No. 162/A/78, Lake Gardens. Said notice was replied but OPs again by notice dated 09.10.2017 demanded the payment of said sum of Rs.24,170/- stating that in case of non-payment, service connection at 167, Rash Bihari Avenue would be disconnected. On receiving said notice, complainant informed to OPs through his Ld. Advocate by a letter dt. 26.10.2017 that electric supply at 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019 has no connection with consumer No.07120098018 which is in respect of Premises No. 162/A/78, Lake Garden. Complainant also informed that by a letter dated 03.12.2013 complainant has already requested the OPs to disconnect the electric connection being consumer No. 07120098018 which was docketed on 04.12.2013. But inspite of that, on 14.11.2017 at around 9.30 a.m., electric line at 167, Rash Behari Avenue being consumer No. 06032224004 was disconnected and the electric meter was sealed till payment of Rs. 24,170/- and it was reconnected at around 1.30 p.m. on the same day after such payment by the complainant which was illegal.
At the outset it maybe pertinent to point out that it is not disputed and denied by the OPs that outstanding of Rs. 24,170/- was due in respect of the consumer No. 07120098018 at Premises No. 162/A/78, Lake Garden but they disconnected the electric supply of consumer no. 06032224004 at Premises No. 167, Rash Behari Avenue.
It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant that the Premises at 162/A/78 was purchased by the complainant is an auction sale and the same was registered in his name on 03.08.2012. I t is argued by him that the complainant being auction purchaser is not liable to pay the energy bill of previous owner. Ld. Advocate has relied upon a case law on this point, reported in 2017 (5) Supreme 741.
It is further argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that OPs had no jurisdiction and were not empowered, to disconnect the electric service connection at a different location for non-payment of claim amount in respect of service connection at another location. He has cited decision of Hon’ble SCDRC in case of District Engineer, CESC Ltd. –vs. – Sri Bimalesh Chowdhury.
On the other hand Ld. Advocate for the OPs has argued that the dispute in this case is relating to bill or it is a billing dispute. So this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same. Complainant ought to have approached grievance redressal officer or ombudsmen. Ld. Advocate has relied upon decision of Hon’ble SCDRC in case of Station Manager, WBSEDCL –vs.- Smt. Protiva Sarkar.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs has also pointed out to the provision of Regulation 13.09. of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extraordinary) dated May 31, 2010.
But on a careful perusal of the decision of Hon’ble SCDRC in case of Station Manager, WBSEDCL –vs.- Protiva Sarkar, referred to above, relied upon by the OPs, it appears that the complainant in that case had prayed for direction to rectify the excessive bill and to replace the defective meter. So the meter was claimed to be defective. Hon’ble State Commission has observed in the said judgement that there is no machinery before a Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to whether the meter in question was defective or not or whether the bill was issued by WBSEDCL in accordance with actual meter reading or not. But in this case, it is not a case of defective meter or excessive bill. It is entirely on a different ground that the service connection of a different location has been disconnected for non-payment in respect of service connection on another location.
In the facts and situation of this case, case law relied upon by the complainant of District Engineer, CESC Ltd. –vs.- Bimalesh Chowdhury is squarely applicable.
In the said case, it has been held by Hon’ble SCDRC that “ In effect, no such provision under the electricity Act and /or WBERC Regulations is forthcoming before us wherefrom it can be ascertained that the said Act/Regulations empowers the distribution licensee to disconnect the service connection of a consumer provided to a different location on account of non-clearance of outstanding in respect of a service connection situated at another location”.
In the case in hand also, OPs disconnected the supply of electricity at 167, Rash Behari Avenue for non-payment of outstanding for the consumption of electricity at 162/A/78, Lake Garden.
The provision of Regulation 13.9 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, referred to above, pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs provides :-
For getting new connection for supply of electricity from a licensee an intending consumer shall be required to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his /her name located in the area of supply of the same licensee and he /she shall also be responsible for payment of outstanding charges calculated in a Prorated Manner, if it is established that he/she had a nexus with the previous consumer including the purchaser/the new tenant of a property or a portion thereof in respect of which there are outstanding charges and/or who has /had benefited from non-payment of the aforesaid outstanding dues by the previous consumer to the licensee.
In this case, it is the specific claim of the complainant that he purchased the premises at 162/A/78, Lake Gardens in an auction sale. To support his claim , he has also filed the copy of the sale deed from which it is evident that complainant purchased the said properly in an auction sale and the deed was registered on 06.08.2012. So apparently the period for which OPs are claiming outstanding in respect of the service connection at 162/A/78, complainant did not consume the electricity. On the contrary, he has filed a copy of letter dated 03.12.2013 wherein, complainant has requested to disconnect the electric connection in the said premises. OPs have not disputed and denied about receiving of the said letter dated 03.12.2013. Moreover complainant has also stated the docket number mentioned by OP on receiving of the said letter. So , if complainant had purchased the said property in an auction sale, he cannot be made liable to pay the outstanding relating to consumption by the previous consumer. There could not be any nexus between the complainant and the previous consumer. OPs have also not filed any document showing any nexus between the two.
In the case law relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant reported in 2017 (5) Supreme 741, ( Southern Power Distribution -vs.- Gopal Agarwal & Others ), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Respondent purchasing the premises in auction on “as is where is “ basis . Previous owner has huge arrears of energy bill – S.P.D.C. demanding arrear before giving new connection to auction purchaser. Auction Purchaser not liable for arrears of previous owner.
Above-mentioned case law is similar to this case. It is totally applicable in the given facts and situation of this case. So, in view of the discussions as highlighted above, it is well established that the disconnection of service connection at the premises No. 167, Rash Behari Avenue by OP on 14.11.2017, was illegal and so for such unfair trade practice, complainant is entitled to the compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him along with cost of litigation. An amount of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost would be justified.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/677/2017 is allowed on contest. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 32,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 60 (sixty ) days from the date of this order failing which the sum shall carry interest. @ 9% p.a. till realisation.
