Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2016

Date of filing: 09.02.2016                                                                      Date of disposal: 31.7.2017

Complainant:               Molla Shanowaz, S/o. Late Molla Samsur Rahaman, Natungram, Kurzon Chati, PO. & District: Burdwan.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:    1.     Chief Engineer (Distribution), West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Block-DJ,  Sector –II, Bidhannagar, Bidyut Bhavan, Kolkata – 700 091.

2.      Station Manager, Bhatar, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bhatar Customer Care Centre, Bhatar, Burdwan.

3.      Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Burdwan, Power House Para, Burdwan – 713 101.    

Present:      Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:           Ld. Advocate, Soumalya Das.

Appeared for the Opposite Party (s):  Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have issued an inflated electric bill upon him which is illegal and the OPs cannot raise any such bill to him.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that the father of the Complainant, since deceased was a consumer of the OPs since 1991 in respect of service connection of his shallow tube well. His father was assassinated by some miscreants on 29.07.2009, but prior to his death the OP-2 had disconnected his electric service connection and since his death the OP-2 did not raise any electric bill upon the Complainant. On 18.01.2013 the Complainant received one electric bill issued by the OP-2 through which the said OP had claimed outstanding amount of Rs.38,991/- for the period from July, 2006 to April, 2008. The Complainant had applied for electric connection for shallow tube well before the OP-2 in the year 2013, for this reason by issuing an electric bill upon the Complainant dated 18.01.2013 the OP-2 claimed the abovementioned outstanding amount from the Complainant. The Complainant had prayed for to waive the said amount, but as the Op-2 did not pay any heed to his request, hence being compelled the Complainant paid the said amount on 20.01.2015 and also prayed for reconnection in the disconnected meter, which was lying in the name of his deceased father. For this purpose the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards reconnection and disconnection charge and accordingly the OPs reconnected the same. Since reconnection the OPs did not bother to take meter reading as per their Rule and the OP-2 used to raise electric bills whimsically. After reconnection consumer ID number has been changed. Thereafter on 28.01.2016 the OPs have raised an electric bill to the Complainant u/S 56(1) of the Electricity Act and through which claim was made to the tune of Rs.84,997/-. The Complainant was directed by the OPs to make payment of the said amount within 11.02.2016, in default the electric connection will be disconnected. According to the Complainant the said bill along with the notice is illegal, which the OPs are not entitled to raise/issue and for this reason the same should be cancelled. The Complainant has submitted that after 18.01.2013 the Complainant did not pay any bill towards his consumption. The OPs did not claim or mentioned such amount in any bill/s prior to issue the questioned inflated bill, which the OP is under obligation to claim/mention as per Electricity Act, 2003. As his grievance have not been redressed by the OPs, hence having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum praying for direction upon the OPs to cancel the questioned bill being illegal and arbitrary, not to disconnect his electric connection, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- due to harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost and unnecessary harassment.

The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version contending that the service connection is existing in the name of the father of the Complainant, since deceased, which was effected for running a shallow tube well. Therefore as the electric connection was given and still persist in the name of the deceased father of the Complainant, hence the present Complainant is not a consumer and the OPs cannot be termed as service providers as there is no agreement by and between the Complainant and the OPs for which the OPs are under obligation to provide any service to the Complainant. After the death of his father being the registered consumer of the OPs the Complainant did not bother to intimate the OPs about the death of the registered consumer either by filing any application or producing the death certificate of his father before them. The Complainant also did not disclose as to whether there is/are any other legal heir/s of the deceased or not and the Complainant did not obtain NOC from the other legal heir/s, if any. According to the OPs the bill was raised as per meter reading and the Complainant is liable to make payment of the entire amount as claimed from him. Though the Complainant is enjoying electricity, but did not pay the bill amount. According to the OPs this complaint should be dismissed being devoid of any merit with cost.

The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of his contention. The OPs have filed written notes of argument along with some documents in support of their argument. We have carefully perused the record; papers and documents and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs. Be it mentioned that on the date of final argument no one was present on behalf of the Complainant. The record reveals that since 11.11.2016 this case is fixed for hearing argument. Thereafter either the Complainant took adjournment or by filing a joint petition the parties prayed for further time. But on 27.07.2017 we were not inclined to grant the adjournment prayer made by the Complainant, moreover the said adjournment petition was not moved either by the Complainant or by his entrusted Advocate. As the evidence of the Complainant is on the record, we took up the hearing of this complaint in presence of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs considering the evidence of the Complainant.

It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant is enjoying the electric service connection for running his shallow tube well lying in the name of his father, since deceased. The father of the Complainant is still the recorded/registered consumer of the OPs. On 29.07.2009 the said registered consumer died due to some reason. But since then till the date of filing of this complaint the OPs were not intimated in writing about the death of his father, being the registered consumer of the OPs. It is revealed from the petition of complaint that prior to death of his father said electric service connection was disconnected by the OPs due to some reasons, but the Complainant by filing an application had prayed for reconnection in the same service connection, lying in the name of his deceased father without making a prayer to change the ownership of the service connection in view of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is argued by the OPs that as the service connection is still lying in the name of his deceased father, hence the Complainant cannot be a consumer within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as enumerated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this respect we are of the view that being the son of the registered consumer of the OPs, since deceased, he can easily be termed as ‘Beneficiary’ of the said deceased consumer. In view of the definition of ‘Complainant’ as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that in case of death of a consumer his/her legal heir/s can file a complaint and he/she is entitled to be a ‘Consumer’. But in the in case in hand the picture is to some extent otherwise because though the Complainant has filed this complaint being beneficiary of his deceased father, but no where it is mentioned that except him there is/are no other legal heir/s of the deceased or he is the sole legal heir of the deceased. The Complainant after the death of his father, being the registered consumer did not take any step to change the ownership of the said service connection in his name obtaining NOC from the other legal heir/s, if any, as per the Rules of the Electricity Act, 2003 and still enjoying the said service connection. On 18.01.2013 the Complainant received an electric bill from the OP-2 through which claim was made to the tune of Rs.38,991/- from the registered consumer towards the outstanding dues for the period from July, 2006 to April, 2008 and the paid the said amount on 20.01.2015. Thereafter the OP-2 issued another bill in the name of the registered consumer claiming a sum of Rs.84,977/- towards the outstanding dues for the period from May, 2008 to July, 2009, but the Complainant did not pay the said amount. According to the Complainant he is not liable to pay the said amount being illegal and arbitrary. In our view that as the Complainant is enjoying the electric service connection of his deceased father he is under obligation to pay the outstanding dues, if any relating to the said service connection as there is nexus by and between the registered consumer and the Complainant being the father and son. There are several rulings wherein it is held that the if nexus is proved by and between the Complainant and the erstwhile consumer/registered consumer, then the Complainant/Applicant is liable to make payment of the entire dues of the erstwhile consumer/registered consumer. Hence having regard to the said rulings we are of the opinion that the present Complainant shall pay the entire outstanding dues of his deceased father as claimed by the OPs by issuing bill. But in the interest of justice we are to give liberty to the Complainant to make payment of the entire outstanding dues in five equal monthly installments along with payment of regular bills.

Be it mentioned that the Complainant shall take necessary steps to surrender the electric service connection lying in the name of his deceased without any further delay as per the Rules and Regulation of the Electricity Act. It is evident from the record that as the Complainant was apprehending that the electric connection may be disconnected due to non-payment of the outstanding amount as claimed, separate petition was made by him for getting an interim order restraining the OPs not to disconnect the electric service connection. Accordingly on 10.02.2016 the said prayer was allowed subject to make payment of 25% of the claimed amount and subsequently the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.21,245/- towards 25% of the outstanding amount. So now the Complainant is under obligation to make payment of 75% of the outstanding amount as claimed by the OPs.

Though the Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost, but in our view he is not entitled to get the same because we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the OPs have claimed the arrear bill from the registered consumer as per consumption. But it is true it was the duty of the OPs to claim the amount within due time/ on regular basis.

Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is

O r d e r e d

 that the complaint is allowed in part on contest without any cost. The Complainant is directed to make payment of the 75% (remaining amount) of the claimed amount in five equal monthly installments, in default of making payment of any installment, the OPs will be at liberty to take step as per the Electricity Act, Rules and Regulations. Be it mentioned that the Complainant shall pay the regular/current bills within due period along with the payment of installments. 

Let plain copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.