Date of Filing – 29.05.2017

Date of Hearing – 22.09.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Complainant to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 124/2016 whereby the complaint lodged by the appellant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

          The Appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a bonafide consumer of WBSEDCL having Meter No.T1761897 (Consumer Id. No.123060078) lying at D.C.-36, Narayantala Road, Deshbandhu Nagar, P.S.- Baguiati, Kolkata – 70-0059 for several years.  On or about June, 2005, the complainant had given ECS standing instruction to deduct the billed amount from Syndicate Bank, Baguiati Branch being A/C No.9771220003787.  The complainant alleged that the OP realised all billed amounts through the ECS but occasionally did not place ECS in the designated bank account.  On one occasion, the OP sent man to disconnect the meter on the pretext of non-payment of the amount.  The complainant submits that the bank statement clearly shows that there was sufficient balance maintained for ECS clearance but the OP intentionally deprived him in making payment in time and was compelled to be termed as ‘defaulter’ for no fault of his own.  Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including a direction upon the OPs to restrain themselves from disconnecting electric supply to complainant’s meter. 

          The Respondents being opposite parties by filing written version have stated that the complainant has preferred an application before the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer on 27.12.2014 and the said application was disposed of on 15.01.2015.  Challenging the said order, the complainant moved before the Appellate Authority ‘Ombudsman’ and after considering the merits of the case, Ld. Ombudsman disposed of the appeal on 27.01.2016 but by suppressing those facts, the complainant has lodged the complaint which deserves dismissal.

          On evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Order dismissed the complaint with an observation that the order of the Authority appointed under the Electricity Act, 2003 was based on proper reasoning.

          I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for appellant and the respondents.

          Undisputedly, the appellant is a bonafide consumer of WBSEDCL having Meter No.T1761897 (Consumer Id. No.123060078) lying at D.C.-36, Narayantala Road, Deshbandhu Nagar, P.S.- Baguiati, Kolkata – 70-0059 for several years.  On or about June, 2005, the appellant had given ECS standing instruction to deduct the billed amount from Syndicate Bank, Baguiati Branch being A/C No.9771220003787.  It is alleged by the appellant that the WBSEDCL realised all the billed amounts through the said ECS facility time to time to the extent of a limit of Rs.1,000/-. But occasionally the WBSEDCL did not place ECS in the designated bank account.

          It transpires that being aggrieved of the conduct of WBSEDCL regarding non-deduction of the billed amount through ECS, the appellant approached the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer (RGRO), Bidhannagar Region of WBSEDCL.  The RGRO by an order has observed that the appellant was informed by the WBSEDCL regarding payment of bills as the billed amount could not be debited from the appellant’s bank account due to the billed amount being more than the ECS limit and as such the appellant needs to clear the outstanding dues/pay the billed amount that were could not be debited from the bank account.  To assail the said order, the appellant moved an appeal before Ombudsman and by an order dated 27.01.2016 final order was passed by the Ld. Ombudsman, West Bengal (appointed under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003) where it has been held that the outstanding bill has already been generated for an amount of Rs.16,654/- as per order of Ld. RGRO and as per order of their higher authority, the appellant is to clear the outstanding in nine instalments.  The Ld. Ombudsman passed the following order:

      “ The complainant shall pay the outstanding bill of Rs.16,654/- that has already been raised in 15 instalments starting from the subsequent month of passing this order.  The complainant shall also pay his current energy bill and any bill of the previous months or month other than the outstanding bill regularly along with the payment of instalments for outstanding bills”.

     In that perspective, the appellant without complying with the order had no reason to lodge the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  The appellant has suppressed the fact that he moved before RGRO or before the Ombudsman, appointed under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.

      The acts and conduct of the Appellant prompted me to refer Paragraph-2 of the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 (Dalip Singh – vs. – State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) which runs thus –

     “In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.  Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth.  They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.  In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice which with tainted hands, is not entitled to relief, interim or final”.

     In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) – vs. – Jagganath (dead) & Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to observe in Paragraph-5 thus –

      “.........one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.  We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the Court is being abused.  Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and others unscrupulous persons from all works of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely.  We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.  He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation”.

      The facts and circumstances and materials on record clearly indicate that the Appellant in order to grab the public money amounting to Rs.16,654/- has suppressed the material fact in disclosing the actual fact that he approached the RGRO or Ombudsman and without complying with the said order, he has lodged the complaint just to gain undue benefit.  In my view, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.

      Considering all the above, the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.

      The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby affirmed.

     The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.