This case has been filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Kuntala Barana Ghosh.

The case of the complainant’s in short is that he is a farmer of village-Bajua, P.S.-Goghat, District-Hooghly.  The complainant states that according to the permission of his grandfather he constructed a house on the property of the grandfather and resides there with his family.  He further states that on the said premises he installed electric connection of WBSEDCL being consumer ID No.501482911 and meter No.013126 and he paid electric bill regularly.

That on 30.8.2017 the complainant received a letter bearing No.GCCC/Disc-info/17-18/529 from WBSEDCL stating that a sum of Rs.23,100.60/- is due on the meter No.L1437464 which is remain in the name of the complainant’s father. Thereafter the WBSEDCL disconnect the said electric connection.

That on all a sudden the WBSEDCL disconnect the electric line of the complainant without giving any information and for which family member of the complainant suffered very much. Finding no other alternative the complainant has compelled to file this case before this forum for relief with a prayer to direct the opposite party to connect the electric line.

The opposite party contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that complainant Sri Kuntal Ghosh has taken electric connection on 17.2.2017 vide ID No.501482911 in his domestic premises at village Bajua.  During supervisory checking the opposite party noticed that a meter bearing SL No.L1437464 is lying just beside the meter No.O13126TH and the service connection of this meter No.L1437464 has been disconnected by the opposite party and it has been detected that said disconnection is due to nonpayment OSD as on 30.8.2017 and total OSD is Rs.23,100.60/- paisa against meter No.L1437464.

This opposite party further states that disconnected service connection was in the name of Tapas Ghosh, father of the complainant Kuntal Barana Ghosh vide consumer ID No.100188607. The complainant misguiding the WBSEDCL, has taken new domestic connection in the same premises. The opposite party as per provision of Section 4.5 Sub-section 4.5.1 under Regulation 55 of WBERC issued a notice to the complainant  asking him for payment of pending OSD in connection with Consumer ID No.100188607 but the complainant did not pay any heed to request of the opposite party.  On 24.8.2017 the service connection of the complainant was disconnected.  It is to be mentioned here that a written intimation was given to the complainant regarding reason of disconnection by the WBSEDCL.

This opposite party also states that as per order of the Ld. Forum the service connection of the complainant has been reconnected on 23.9.2017, for which the complainant has been able to enjoy the electricity without making payment of the said huge amount of public money lying in the name of his father.  The application under section 13(3B) of the C.P. Act has no merit at all and deserves to be rejected and ex-parte order passed against the WBSEDCL may kindly be set aside for the ends of justice otherwise the opposite party as Govt. Enterprise will sustain economic loss and public revenue cannot be recovered.   Hence, this case.

Both sides files evidence on affidavit & written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Kuntal Barana Ghosh is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite parties, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Kuntal Barana Ghosh is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

 From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the OP Company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

   Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.        

(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

 The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

The case of the complainant is that he is living in the ancestral property by constructing a house with his family and consuming power in his name and paying bills regularly. That on 30.8.2017 the complainant received a letter bearing No.GCCC/Disc-info/17-18/529 from WBSEDCL stating that a sum of Rs.23,100.60/- is due on the meter No.L1437464 which is remained in the name of the complainant’s father. That all on a sudden the WBSEDCL disconnected the electric line of the complainant without giving any information and for which family members of the complainant suffered very much. Finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case before this forum for relief with a prayer to direct the opposite party to connect the electric line. During the course of proceeding the complainant filed a petition u/s-13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 praying direction upon the opposite party to reconnect the power connection and considering the exigency this Forum vide its order dated 20.9.2017 allowed the prayer of the complainant and directed the opposite party to reconnect the power of the complainant. Since then the complainant is enjoying power in his house.

The opposite party averred that complainant Sri Kuntal Barna Ghosh has taken electric connection on 17.2.2017 vide ID No.501482911 in his domestic premises at village- Bajua.  During supervisory checking the opposite party noticed that a meter bearing SL No.L1437464 is lying just beside the meter No.O13126TH and the service connection of this meter No.L1437464 has been disconnected by the opposite party and it has been detected that said disconnection is due to nonpayment OSD as on 30.8.2017 and total OSD is Rs.23,100.60/- paisa against meter No.L1437464.

This opposite party further states that disconnected service connection was in the name of Tapas Ghosh, father of the complainant Kuntal Barana Ghosh vide consumer ID No.100188607. The complainant misguiding the WBSEDCL has taken new domestic connection in the same premises. The opposite party as per provision of Section 4.5 Sub-section 4.5.1 under Regulation 55 of WBERC issued a notice to the complainant  asking him for payment of pending OSD in connection with Consumer ID No.100188607 but the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of the opposite party.  On 24.8.2017 the service connection of the complainant was disconnected after serving notice upon the complainant. Subsequently opposite party as per order of the Ld. Forum has been reconnected the service connection of the complainant on 23.9.2017, for which the complainant has been able to enjoy the electricity without making payment of the said huge amount of public money lying in the name of his father.  The opposite party in his written notes of argument assailed that the opposite party is entitled to recover the pending OSD against consumer ID- No.100188607 from the petitioner Kuntal Baran Ghosh as per section 3.4.2 under regulation 55 of WBSERC. The opposite party by referring the decision of Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited V. Madhabi Ghosh held that Electricity bill of the erstwhile consumer, to be recovered from the new and subsequently consumer in the same premises, Relation between the previous consumer and new and subsequently consumer is to be established in terms of regulation 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations 2007. In the instant case the previous consumer and the present consumer are the father and son , moreover they are living in the same premises as it is revealed during  supervisory checking, the opposite party noticed that a meter bearing SL No.L1437464 is lying just beside the meter No.O13126TH and the service connection of this meter No.L1437464 has been disconnected. The complainant assailed that he became perplexed after getting the notice dated 30.8.2017 and opined that his father Tapas Ghosh is in good health and still alive and venture should be made by the opposite party to realize the dues from his father and he is not responsible to pay the dues of his father. The complainant further assailed that after proper verification the opposite party gave him power connection.   

From the above discussion we may come into this conclusion that the complainant is the son of previous consumer and he applied for new connection and the opposite party provided him power and during the course of supervisory checking it is revealed that there is an electric meter by the side of the present meter being disconnected for nonpayment of dues in the name of the father of the complainant. Then the opposite party served notice upon the complainant to pay the outstanding dues but the complainant failed to pay the same so the opposite party disconnected the power connection in the residential place of the complainant and being aggrieved the complainant preferred the recourse of this Forum. The opposite party by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument resisted the complainant petition and assailed that the complainant i.e. the present consumer and his father the previous consumer residing in the same house and enjoying power  supplied by the opposite party.  The opposite party referred the regulation 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Notification dated 12.9.2007 in which it is stated that ‘’The license shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer(s) the dues of the previous and defaulting consumer(s) in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and defaulting(s) in respect of the same premises is proved. The onus of proving a nexus, if claimed by a license, shall lie on the license.” The opposite party refereed a few decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in which Hon’ble  High court in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited V. Madhabi Ghosh held that Electricity bill of the erstwhile consumer, to be recovered from the new and subsequently consumer in the same premises, Relation between the previous consumer and new and subsequently consumer is to be established in terms of regulation 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations 2007. In the instant case the previous consumer and the present consumer are the father and son, moreover they are living in the same premises as it is revealed during supervisory checking and the complainant admitted in the complaint petition that previous owner is his father. So this Forum is in the opinion that there is a nexus in between father and his son so the opposite party may collect the outstanding dues from the present consumer in accordance with the regulation 3.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2007.  Accordingly, the complainant fails to inspire confidence in the mind of the Forum regarding his grievances against the Opposite party. The case fails miserable for want of sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence. Thus the complaint petition filed by the complainant has no leg to stand as such it is liable to be rejected.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant failed to establish that the deficiency of service of the opposite party as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.

ORDER

     Hence, it is ordered that the Compliant Case No. 192/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest.   Interim order allowed u/s-13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act is rejected.

      Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.