West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/23/2016

Sohom Majumdar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dipankar Pati

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No. 23/2016

                                                       

                                                                    Sohom Majumdar…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

                           1) The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

                           2) The Chairman & Managing Director,  

                                                                              W.B.S.E.D.C.L..………………...…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 03/06/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Sohom Mujumdar,  a minor,  represented by his  guardian-father Samir Majumdar,  got the property and premises in question from Smt. Bina Chakraborty by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 07/11/2003 with old building and structure standing thereon.  There was electric connection in the said premises vide service connection no.B026455 and the electric bill against such meter has been paid from the year 2003 to March, 2011.  On 26/07/2014, the complainant applied for getting new electric connection after demolishing the old structure and effecting new structure thereupon along with annexures including way leave permission etc with the opposite party no.1.  Vide a letter dated 08/08/2014, opposite party intimated the complainant that since a court case in respect of that premises was pending,  so it was not possible for them to provide electric connection in the said premises. It is stated that the property in question

Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

and other part of the said property previously belonged to one Sudhabgshu Bose and others and they sold the entire property by sub-dividing the same into two parts, one part in favour of Smt. Bina Chakraborty who in her turn has gifted her purchased property in favour of the complainant on 07/11/2003.  On 21/03/2011,  A/E/SS Keranitola Battala seized such meter no.B026455 from the premises and started a criminal case under Electricity Act against one Timir Majumdar.  Said case was ultimately dismissed and Timir Majumdar was acquitted.  Samir Majumdar moved before OMBUDSMAN by submitting a representation u/c 42(6) of Electricity Act 2003 against W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and the same was disposed of and the complainant was directed to complete meter room and electric wiring in the premises in question for getting new electric connection and the complainant accordingly did so and intimated the office of the opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 21/07/2015.  In the meantime, Sri Samir Majumdar, the father of the complainant once again applied to A.E./S.S. for service connection on 07/06/2015 and thereafter the opposite party no.1 issued ID number for new service connection and issued quotation amount and accordingly he has deposited a sum of Rs.5010/- as per quotation on 16/06/2015 and applied for getting services.  After lapse of a considerable period opposite party no.1 turned down the prayer of the complainant.  Finding  no other alternative the complainant has filed this case praying for directing the opposite parties to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant and for an award of damage and cost of the proceeding.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

              Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant applied before the office of the opposite party for effecting new service connection by suppressing actual fact.  It is stated that in that premises there was a service connection in the name of Nagendra Mohan Bose vide Consumer ID no.B026455 till 21/03/2011 and on that day it was detected that there was theft of electricity in that premises and accordingly a theft case was lodged against Timir Majumdar who happens to be the brother of the father of the complainant. Samir Majumdar, the father of the complainant and his wife  Pranita Majumdar and brother  Timir Majumdar have been residing in the said holding being no.334/1/485.  It is stated that as per electricity act, the opposite parties have every right to recover the previous dues from the new and subsequent consumers in respect of the same premises if there is a nexus between the previous and defaulting consumers and the new consumers in respect of the

Contd………………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

said premises.  It is further stated that Samir Majumdar, the father of the complainant tried to take electric connection through on line application and by depositing the quotation money and thereafter on inspection the opposite parties came to know that an outstanding dues of electricity bill is still pending against this premises and accordingly one letter was issued to Samir Majumdar to clear the said outstanding bill but he did not comply the same.  Thereafter Pranita Majumdar the mother of the complainant and the wife of Samir Majumdar filed a writ application before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta vide W.P. No.25726 (W) of 2014 against the opposite party no.1 and others and that case was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.  An appeal was preferred against such order of dismissal before the Division Bench at High Court, Calcutta vide CAN No. 11969 of 2015 Mat no. 1260 of 2015 and that appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.  Said Samir Majumdar also filed a representation before the Ombudsman vide Case no.W-894 SB / 2014 and that case was also dismissed.  It is specifically stated that unless the outstanding dues of Rs.5,20,816/-  is not paid in respect of the said premises,  new connection of electricity cannot be effected by the opposite parties in the said premises.  Opposite parties therefore claimed dismissal of the petition of complaint.

                                                                                                   Point for decision 

                                                                Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                    

Decision with reasons

In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.  Admittedly, there was an electric connection in the premises in question vide electric service connection no.B026455.  According to the opposite parties, the said connection was in the name of one Nagendra Mohan Bose till 21/03/2011 and on that particular day it was detected by them that there was an occurrence of theft of electricity in that premises and accordingly a theft case against Timir Majumdar, the uncle of the complainant, was lodged.  In that case, it was alleged that there was theft of electricity amounting to Rs.5,20,816/- which is still lying unpaid.   According to the opposite parties the present applicant along with his parents and uncle Timir Majumdar have been residing in the same holding being no.334/1/485.  It is not the case of the complainant that he is claiming electric connection in another separate holding.  Admittedly, in the said criminal case u/s 135 of Electricity Act, Timir Majumdar was acquitted.  But it is the settled law that acquittal of a person from criminal liabilities has got not bearing with the civil liabilities imposed by the licensee to the said consumer.  So far civil liabilities is concerned that would

Contd………………..P/4

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

be dealt u/s 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act in order to determine the civil liabilities as to how much electricity was consumed by the consumer during the period of committing theft.  From the provisional assessment bill regarding such theft of electricity, we find that there was a gross demand of Rs.5,20,816/- towards energy charge of such theft of electricity.  Admittedly, the said amount of Rs.5,20,816/- is still remaining unpaid.

 It appears from the copy of judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in WP No.25726 (W) 2014 that Pranita Majumdar,  the mother of the complainant, filed a writ application before the Hon’ble High Court against the present opposite parties challenging the letter dated 15/03/2014 sent by the opposite parties and for quashing the demand of payment made by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 15/03/2014.  The said writ petition as it appears from the copy of order was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.  It further appears thereafter Pranita Majumdar,  the mother of the complainant,  filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and after hearing all the parties their Lordships were pleased to dismiss  the appeal vide order dated 13/01/2016 passed in MAT 1260 of 2015 and CAN no.11969 of 2015.  It also appears from the documents on record that Samir Majumdar, the father of the complainant filed a representation u/s 42(6) of Electricity Act before the OMBUDSMAN with a prayer for effecting service connection in the said premises.  After a contested hearing,  the said prayer of the complainant was rejected by the OMBUDSMAN vide order dated 11/08/2015.  The present case has been filed thereafter by and on behalf of minor Sohom Majumdar, son of Pranita Majumdar and Samir Majumdar,  praying for an order directing the opposite party to give electric connection in the premises in question and for other reliefs.  From the above discussions we find that initially the mother of the complainant moved before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta challenging the demand of payment made by the opposite party in respect of arrear electric bill of Rs.5,20,816/- and the said application was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court.  The father of the complainant also moved before the OMBUDSMAN with a prayer for effecting electric services connection in the premises in question and the said representation of Samir Majumdar was also dismissed.  After such dismissal, the present case has been filed by and on behalf of the complainant with the same prayer for effecting electric service connection in the premises in question.  It is not denied and disputed that the said arrear electric bill of Rs.5,20,816/- has not yet been paid.  From the notification dated 07/08/2013 of the West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission published in the Calcutta Gazette, we find “That the licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer (s) the dues of the previous and defaulting of

Contd………………..P/5

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

consumers in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and defaulting consumers (s) and the new consumer (s) in respect of the same premises is proved”.   It is not disputed that Timir Majumdar, against whom a theft case for unauthorized electric connection was initiated, happens to be the uncle of the present complainant.  The complainant along with his parents namely Pranita Majumdar and Samir Majumdar  reside in the said premises in respect of which there is an outstanding dues of electric bill of Rs.5,20,816/-.  Although the present complainant acquired ownership in respect of certain portion of that premises in the year 2003 by virtue of a deed of gift but he applied for getting new electric connection before the opposite party in the year 2014.  It thus appears that there is a clear nexus in between the complainants and his parents and said Timir Majumdar against whom a demand of Rs.5,20,816/-  towards arrear electric bill is pending. In view of that and since the complainant resides in the said premises in respect of which arrear outstanding electric bill is remaining unpaid,  so the opposite parties  cannot be directed to give electric connection to the complainant’s premises, as prayed for.  We therefore find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                   Hence, it is,

                                                                Ordered,

                                                                  that the complaint case no.23/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

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

 

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.             Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                  Member                                    President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur