West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/24/2019

Abu Bakkar Siddik, S/O- Soleman Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Tapan Group Electric Supply - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2021

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 7058 /- + compensation Rs. 1,20,000/- + Litigation cost Rs. 20,000/-, Total amount = Rs. 1,47,058/-.

     The fact of the case, in brief, is that after the demise of his mother Hasena Bibi, his father got married for the second time to Rubina Bibi and started residing separately at Majhikhanda More with his second wife. The Complainant along with his unmarried elder sister Julekha Bibi are residing in the old parental house at Dwipkhanda. The Complainant intended to open a poultry farm at Dwipkhanda over his own landed property and having such intention applied for new connection from Opposite Party No.1 Distribution Company vide application No. 4002303442. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 Distribution Company sent quotation for Rs.7058/-. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.5058/- as security deposit and Rs.2000/- as service connection charge on 16.01.2019 on proper receipt. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties Company installed a meter in the farm premises vide Meter No. B – 2416704 and service connection No. 402268539. But the Contractor and their authorized person Asraf Ali Opposite Parties No.2&3 of the Opposite Party No.1claimed bribe from the Complainant for effecting new connection. The Complainant denied to give the same due to his financial scarcity. Subsequently, the said contractor arrived at the spot to activate the electric connection on 28.01.2019. As the Complainant declined to give bribe to the contractor of the Opposite Party No.1, tried to remove the electric meter installed in the premises of poultry farm forcibly without assigning any reason or prior intimation with a plea that the father of the Complainant Soleman Sarkar had a connection of STW for irrigation. But fact remains that father of the Complainant had a connection vide service connection no. 4495/STW on contract basis without any meter which was known as “un-metered agriculture connection (submersible). The father of the Complainant used to pay billed amount as per rule by equal fixed installment and the said connection was surrendered by him long ago and no outstanding dues lying with the said STW connection. Though the STW connection of the father of the Complainant was un-metered, but the Opposite Party No.1 claimed that there was a meter allotted to the connection of his father vide meter No. SF037412 and consumer no. 433079807, installation no. 10055131. All information as stated above are false and manufactured to frustrate the legal right of the Complainant. The Opposite Party never claimed any amount from the father of the Complainant or never served any demand notice which was surrendered more than 10 years ago. Not only that the Opposite Party lodged complaint against the Complainant and his father on baseless false allegation to conceal their own fault and misdeed. The Opposite Party no.1 is duty bound to effect the new service connection within a period of stipulation as per Electric Act. There is neglect act on the part of the Opposite Parties which amounts to be deficiency in service towards the Complainant. Having no alternative, the Complainant has filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

              Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this commission and filed his written version. The Opposite Parties No.2&3 appeared before this commission and prayed for time to file written version but subsequently they failed to take any step in this case hence, the case is heard ex parte against them.

By filing written version, the opposite Party No.1 denied the material allegation of the complainant and submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant applied for a new connection through online mode vide application no.4002303443 ID no. 402268539 dated 14.01.2019 and paid service connection charge of Rs.2000/- and security charge of Rs. 5058/- through online mode on 16.01.2019 and an work order vide no. 377026 was placed on 25.01.2019 in favour of M/S Das Enterprise to effect the service connection vide memo. No.1106 dated 28.01.2019 and handed over the meter No.B2416704. Total 17 meters were handed over to Mr. Asraf Ali of M/S Das Enterprise vide work order no.377021 & 377026 on that date. Mr. Asraf Ali with his helper went to the spot on 30.01.2019 at 11.00 A.M to effect the connection & other and he enquired and found that a STW meter vide no. SF037412 on the same pole in the name of one Soleman Sarkar S/O Lt. Kashimuddin Sarkar of Dwipkhanda ID no.433079807, service connection no.4495/STW having an outstanding dues of Rs.83,455.29/- +LPSC charges, and the person is the father of the Complainant. As such, the connection was declined due to that outstanding amount of the father of the Complainant in the same place and same premises and there is nexus.

The Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that after denial of connection, the father of the Complainant and he himself tried to forceful connection, on request and after explaining the present position of rule, they did not accept the plea and threatened the persons and assaulted Mr. Asraf Ali and pillaged 7 nos. of meter, 7 nos. of seal, 2 coils of PVC Cable, 45 meters of PVC Cable, other stool kits and one Bajaj Pulsar bike (Registration No. WB62 A5822). Subsequently at about 15.00 hours, the Complainant returned back all the materials to Mr. Asraf Ali except one meter No. B3416734, 45 meters of PVC Cable and on several request he refused to return the said meter and Cable. Thereafter, Mr. Asraf Ali submitted a detailed complaint before the Tapan Police Station on 31.01.2019 and a Criminal Case has been started against this Complainant and his father vide case no. 34/2019.    

The Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that Soleman Sarkar was given an un-metered connection on 07.01.2005 with service connection no.4495/STW, connection no. 5592 and said connection was migrated to SAP database from legacy database on 01.11.2013 with ID consumer no.433079807 & installation no.10055131 and at the time of his migration his outstanding amount was Rs.41514/-. For the said connection Soleman Sarkar paid the bill only thrice i.e. on 12.02.2007 of Rs.6043/- vide receipt no.32656, on 02.02.2009 of Rs.8463/- vide receipt no.19134 and on 12.04.2014 of Rs.14910 vide receipt no.69017, thereafter no payment was made by Soleman Sarkar for the said STW connection. As per order of the higher authority as all the un-metered connection was migrated in metered connection vide meter no. SF – 034412 on 30.08.2014 with initial reading OKWH. But due to non-payment of outstanding amount said connection was disconnected on 18.08.2016, current outstanding is of Rs.83,455/- + LPSC charges. The meter o. B2416704 was not installed by the agency due to outstanding dues as rules and regulation of WBSEDCL, more over they forcibly pillaged the meter No. B2416734. The complainant wrongly stated that the connection was surrendered is fully wrong because for surrendering any connection consumer needs to pay all the dues with permanent disconnection charge of Rs.40/- and as the dues was not paid and permanent disconnection charge was not paid, so his surrender for the said connection does not arise. The claim of the Complainant that said connection was surrendered about 10 years ago is totally false as because his father lastly deposited an amount of Rs14910/- on 12.04.2014 and before his disconnection his last bill was generated on 20.05.2016 of Rs83,455.29/-. The connection of the Complainant was attempted to effect on 30.01.2019 i.e. after 14 days from the dated of payment of quotation amount. As the premises is the part of the land where irrigation was done which clearly established the nexus between them so, the connection was put on hold till the payment of STW connection. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.    

To prove his case, the complainant has filed (i) Quotation in the name of the Complainant (ii) Original Complaint dated 08.02.2019 sent by Jelekha Bibi to the Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL, Balurghat and (iii) Original  meter card in the name of Soleman Sarkar.

             On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have filed the following documents in support of their defense  

i) Photo Copy of Electric bill in the name of Soleman Sarkar dated 20.05.2016 issued by Tapan Customer Care, 

ii) Photo Copy of Letter of M/S Enterprise written to AE / SM, Tapan CCC, 

iii) Photo Copy of letter dated 01.02.2019 sent by AE & Station Manager to Officer-in-Charge Tapan, Police Station, 

iv) Photo Copy of seizure list,  

v) Photo Copy of movement register of WBSEDCL (two pages).     

 

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration 

 

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

         

          1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

          2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

          3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Parties at length. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by both the parties.          

          At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the claim of Opposite Parties that the father had a STW connection and amount was lying outstanding in connection with the said STW connection, but why the Opposite Parties kept silent for more than10 years in realizing the said amount? Why they did not claim the amount till edge of giving new connection of the Complainant and rest the quotation to the Complainant and receive the quotation amount without raising any objection. This is the main fallacy which proves falsity of the Opposite Parties` story. Ld. Advocate also drew my attention towards the observations held in 2008 CPJ (III) 65 W.B. and AIR 2008 Guj 190. He further added and explained the section 43 and section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Lastly, he submitted that the Complainant has proved his case so, the case should be allowed.   

           On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also discussed his defense case and submitted that there is a nexus in between the Complainant and his father to install a new connection in the name of the Complainant in spite of a huge outstanding dues on the part of the father of the Complainant in respect of the same premises. It is the rule of the WBSEDCL that until and unless old dues are not paid in respect of the same premises, no new connection can be provided to the applicant. The instant case has been filed by the Complainant cunningly so, it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1  

         This point has not been raised by Ld advocate for the Opposite Parties at the time of argument. However, on perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant, in terms of quotation paid a sum of Rs.5058/- as security deposit and Rs.2000/- as service connection charge on 16.01.2019 on proper receipt. By this way the Complainant has became consumer to the Opposite Parties under the provision of the C.P. Act. 

         Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

          It is the allegation of the Complainant that in spite of payment of security deposit and service connection charge , the opposite Parties  intentionally and willfully did not effect new connection to the Complainant with a plea that the father of the Complainant Soleman sarkar had a connection of STW for irrigation and an outstanding dues of Rs.83,455.29 + LPSC charges is still pending whereas the father of the Complainant used to pay billed amount as per rule and the said connection was surrendered by him long ago and no outstanding dues lying with the said STW connection.

      On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have submitted that when Mr. Asraf Ali of M/S Das Enterprise went to effect connection to the house of the Complainant, he found that a STW Meter vide no. SF037412 on the same pole in the name of Soleman Sarkar having an outstanding of Rs.83,455.29 + LPSC charges is pending and the person is the father of the Complainant. As such the connection was declined due to that outstanding amount of the father of the Complainant in the same place and same premises and as there is nexus.  

    At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cited a case law reported in 2008 CPJ ( lll )65 W.B wherein it has been observed that  no sum due from consumer be recoverable after two years from date when it became first due. Opposite Party could not claim outstanding due after seven years. No document was produced to prove nexus between complainant with defaulting consumer. WBSEDCL, being licensee could not claim outstanding dues of erstwhile defaulting consumers from third party.  He further added that as per observation held in AIR 2008 190Guj that  Merely because father of petitioner was found in electricity theft case or any amount was outstanding from father of petitioner would not be a justifiable ground to reject application for electricity supply applied by son. Father and son were separate legal entity. One who was holding property, or that particular parcel of land could be held answerable for dues of electricity and not brother or son who may be holding separate property.

     Both of these case laws are not applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances are not similar with those case laws. 

  It is provided in part l point 3.4.2 published in THE KOLKATA GAZETTE,EXTRAORDINARY, AUGUST 7, 2013, Regulation No.55/WBERC, dated 07.08.2013 that The licensee will be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer(s) the dues of the previous and 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, admittedly, the Complainant and the Soleman Sarkar are son and father. It is also an admitted fact that the electric connection has been sought for by the Complainant in the same premises where the father of the Complainant had a STW connection and an outstanding amounting to Rs.83,455.29/- + LPSC charges is not paid. It appears from the bill, billing dated 20.05.2016 that a sum of Rs.83,416/- along with arrear outstanding amount of Rs.82,476.57/- has not been paid by the father of the Complainant. For that reason the connection in the name of father of the Complainant was disconnected on 18.08.2016. The plea of the Complainant that his father has paid all the dues and surrendered the meter has no legs to stand as the Complainant has failed to produce a single paper in this regard. Section 56 (2) of The Electricity Act,2003 provides that  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from anyconsumer, underthis section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date whensuch sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied  This outstanding arrear has been shown in the bill, billing dated 20.05.2016 in the name of Soleman Sarkar, meter no.SF034412.   

      Further, it has been stated by the Complainant that after second marriage his father has left the house where he resided and presently the Complainant and his sister are residing. But this plea is also not acceptable because from the complainant letter of Asraf Ali of M/S Enterprise written to AC/SM, Tapan CCC, it appears that the Complainant and his father Soleman Sarkar both were present when Mr. Asraf Ali and his helper went to effect connection at the premises of the Complainant and both the Complainant and his father threatened, abused and snatched some meters and electric wires from the possession of Asraf Ali. This contention of Asraf Ali has not been challenged by the Complainant and for that incident a Criminal case being GR Case no.34 of 2019 has been filed against the Complainant and his father Soleman Sarkar. The presence of Soleman Sarkar at the premises goes to show the nexus in between the Complainant and his father.

    Further, it has been stated that he and his unmarried sister Julekha Bibi are residing at her paternal house at Dwipkhanda. But in a letter dated 08.02.2019 sent by Julekha Bibi to the Divisional Engineer WBSEDCL, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, she has mentioned the name of her husband as Islam Sarkar. In such circumstances, the contention of the Complainant that his sister is unmarried is not believable. 

       Further, it appears that the Complainant has paid security amount and connection charge of Rs.7058/- on 16.01.2019 and Mr. Asaraf Ali and his helper went to the spot on 30.01.2019 to effect the connection so, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Parties have complied the provision of section 43 of The Electricity Act, 2003.

       However, the electricity, in the modern period has became part and parcel of the life of a man so, the WBSEDCL is duty bound to supply electric connection to the Complainant if the Complainant pays the outstanding of Rs.83,416/-.

 

           In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the Opposite Parties but there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties

 

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Opposite Parties. 

 

 

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

           

          That the Consumer Case No. 24 of 2019 is dismissed on contest but without cost. 

           The Opposite Parties are directed to return Rs.7058/- to the Complainant which was deposited as security money and connection charge if the Complainant does not pay the outstanding of Rs.83,416/- for new electric connection within 45 days from the date of passing of this order and if the Complainant pays the said outstanding amount, the Opposite Parties are directed to effect electric connection within thirty days from the date of deposit of the outstanding dues.

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