A. K. BHATTACHARYYA, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased a 16.4 dec. land with pucca four storied building situated on plot no. 3044 with electric connection by a Registered Sale Deed being no. 5154 of 2012 on 25.07.2012 from one Sri Arup Kumar Parui, s/o Sri Amalendu Parui at Vill. Basudevpur, P.O. Khanjanchak, P.S. Durgachak, Dist. Purba Medinipur; that there was an electric connection at the said building in the name of said Arup Kumar Parui being Service Connection no. C/6776, Consumer ID 224021648; that after selling the said building said Arup Kumar Parui wrote a letter to OP on 03-08-2012 asking them to disconnect the said electric connection and also asked the OP to adjust the outstanding due from the security money stood in his name; that complainant also wrote a letter to the OP to shift the said meter on 13-08-2012; that after receiving the said letter, OP sent a quotation report on 11-08-2012 demanding Rs. 27,457.00 for change of ownership of said electric connection and accordingly complainant deposited the same to OP on 13-08-2012; that complainant cleared payment of all energy bill including the outstanding dues in respect of said connection amounting to Rs. 3,04,067.00 on 11-08-2012 (outstanding for the period from Feb. 2012 to June 2012 Rs. 1,41,404.00 and current bill Rs. 1,66,528.00); that said electric connection has been registered in the name of complainant being Consumer ID no. 220421648; that on 16-10-2012 complainant wrote a letter to the OP for providing a new meter in place of said old meter; that till 27-03-2014 complainant cleared all energy bills being issued by the OP from time to time on a regular basis; that on 14-03-2014 complainant received letter dt. 11-03-2014 from the OP stating that cheque nos. 816536 dt. 11-11-2009, 730421 dt. 19-11-2008 and 730406 dt. 20-11-2008 got bounced because of insufficient balance with a direction to clear the outstanding dues within 7 days from the date of issue of said letter; that the cheque issued in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs. 24,677.00 was issued by Sri Arup Kumar Parui for which complainant cannot be held responsible since he purchased the building in July 2012 only; that complainant received a bill of Rs. 1,54,694.00 of which Rs. 75,612.00 was towards outstanding due for which, complainant cannot be forced to cough up the same. However, since OP has threatened to disconnect the electric line unless the outstanding due is cleared, complainant filed the instant case.
In support of his contention complainant submitted photocopies of several energy bills together with money receipts, letters of OP intimating her about the fact of dishonor of some cheques. some correspondences exchanged between them, Sale Deed, parcha etc.
On receipt of notice, OP appeared to contest the case. OP filed their written version and WNA. By their written version, OP inter alia denied all the material allegations of the complainant and stated that complainant initiated a Writ Petition being no. 10550 (W) of 2014 against the OP and therefore, the instant case is not maintainable before this forum. It is further stated by the OP that on the basis of assurance of complainant to clear all old outstanding dues in respect of the energy meter in question, service connection was not disconnected to the house of the complainant; that OP did not install new meter to the premises of the complainant since the complainant, despite his assurance, has not repaid all outstanding dues pertaining to the meter in question; that the cheque issued by erstwhile owner of the house in question got bounced and therefore, based on complainant-s undertaking they demanded the money from the complainant. Denying any laches on their part, OP demanded for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.
Points for consideration
On the basis of rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, following issues emerge for adjudication of the instant complaint case.
- Whether the instant case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged?
- Whether complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 to 3-
All the above points are taken up collectively for convenience of discussion.
Heard the ld. Advocates for both sides at length over the final hearing of the case, perused the materials on record.
The ld. Advocate of the complainant submitted that after purchased/purchasing the building in question from the original owner, Arup Kumar Parui on 25/07/2012 by the complainant, all electric bills amounts including the arrear had already been paid to the OP relating to the electric service connection and that the complainant made payment of all bills till 27/03/2014. But the OP sent a letter dt. 14/03/2014 to the complainant of Rs. 75,612.00 in respect of three cheques dt. 20/11/2008, 21/11/2008 and 11/11/2009 within 7 days time since 3 cheques issued by the previous owner Arup kumar Parui had been dishonoured, otherwise the electric service line would be discontinued.
According to the ld. Advocate for the complainant that the OP cannot demand the amount of dishonoured cheques which were time barred and issued in the year 2008 by the said previous owner Arup Kumar Parui and cannot threaten to disconnect the service connection.
The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP has opposed the argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant. It is contended on behalf of the OP that after transfer of the said building, the previous owner applied for discontinuation of the said electric service connection stood in his name. But as per request of the complainant, the service connection was not discontinued as she gave undertaking that all the arrears would be paid by her and the service connection was transferred to her name and so the complainant had/has to pay the amount of arrear bills as the said cheques for such Rs. 75,612.00 were dishonoured.
Apart from that the ld. Advocate for the OP further submitted that the complainant has also filed a writ petition being no. W.P. No. 10550 (W) before the Hon-ble High Court, Calcutta against this OP over the same cause of action with self-same matter and relief simultaneously suppressing the material fact of the writ petition which is still pending before the Hon-ble High Court, and that Hon-ble Court has already passed an interim restraining order from disconnecting the service line against this OP on prayer of the complainant though the complainant also made a prayer before the Forum. Accordingly the submission of ld. Advocate for the OP, this complaint should be dismissed since not maintainable.
It appears from the record that the instant case was filed on 02/04/2014 before this forum by the complainant. The petition praying for interim order restricting the OP from disconnecting the electric line was moved on 03/04/2014 before this Forum on behalf of the complainant and interim order was passed on same date by this forum against the OP.
It transpires from the photocopy of writ petition W.P. No. 10550 (W) of 2014 dt. 02/04/2013 produced on behalf of the OP, that the said writ petition was solemnly affirmed by Sk. Sahabuddin Mollah, the husband of the complainant on behalf of her on 02/03/2013 being authorized by the complainant and the matter of the writ petition was mentioned for hearing before the Hon-ble High Court, Calcutta on 03/04/2014 which is shown from the ld. Advocate, High Court-s letter dt. 03/03/2014 produced by the OP on record when the complainant had also filed this petition of complaint before this Consumer Forum on 02/04/2014 and moved the petition for interim order on 03/04/2014.
It further reveals from the photocopy of letter dt. 10/04/2014 and 15/05/2014 of ld. Advocate Calcutta High Court of the complainant addressed to A.G.M. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and net photocopy of order dt. 08/04/2014 and 09/04/2014 of the Hon-ble High Court in relation to the said writ petition of the complainant filed before the Hon-ble High Court on 02/04/2014 that the Hon-ble Court has been pleased to pass interim order on 08/04/2014 with direction to the OP -not to disconnect the supply to the petitioner until further order and then by order dt. 09/04/2014, the said interim order has been extended till disposal of the said writ petition and in passing the order dt. 09/04/2014 the Hon-ble High Court has been pleased to make observation as follows -I am prima facie satisfied of the petitioner-s case that she cannot be held liable for dishonor of cheques, given by the original owner of the premises-.
We are unable to comprehend as to how and why the complainant intentionally suppressed, the impact/material fact of the aforesaid writ petition filed by her and the interim order passed over the self same matter in relation to the same cause of action by the Hon-ble High Court, before this Forum. It is to be noted that the OP brought to the notice of the forum about the above matter of writ petition filed by the complainant and interim order passed by the Hon-ble High Court by producing documents (photocopies) along with its w/v on 19/05/2005 of which the copy had already been served upon the complainant on 10/05/2014. But even after receipt of the said copy of w/v of the OP on 10/05/2014, the complainant did not make any whisper about the subjudice of said self-same matter over the same cause along with some relief (except compensation) before the Hon-ble High Court filed by her, in her subsequent W/N/A filed on 03/06/2014. Such act/conduct of the complainant with regard to suppression of above material fact is not acceptable as also not tenable in law.
In the circumstances, as aforesaid, this Consumer Forum cannot take any decision over the dispute/contention made in the instant complaint when the self-same matter over the same cause of action and relief is sub judice before the Hon-ble High Court in relation to the writ petition filed by the complainant because in our view it (taking of any decision by this Forum) is not permissible under law). As this Forum is not in a position to take any decision for the above reasons whether the OP has any deficiency in service in the matter of demand of outstanding payment of the OP as alleged by the complainant, the question of passing any award/compensation as sought for by the complainant does not arise at all. As such, for the foregoing reasons the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
That being the position, the instant case is liable to be dismissed since not maintainable for reasons as mentioned above.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
