State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/133



DATE OF FILING : 30.03.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 07.07.2009


APPELLANTS



1. The Circle Manager & CGRO

Bidhan Nagar ‘D’ Circle

West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Block – AA Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064.

2. The Manager, A.E.&S.M.

Bidhan Nagar, E.S./S.D.-1, West Bengal Electricity

Distribution Company Limited

Block – AA 27, Salt Lake City,

Kolkata-700 064.

3. The Chief Public Relation Officer

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City,

Kolkata-700 091.



RESPONDENT



Mr. Gopal Chandra Mukherjee

Substituted Complainant and husband of Sabitri Mukherjee,

the original complainant

BE-30, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: In person





: O R D E R :


MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

This Appeal arose out of judgement and order dt. 31.12.08 in DCDRF, North 24 Parganas Case No. 34(s)/2008 where the complainant, Smt. Sabitri Mukherjee’s (since deceased and substituted by Shri Gopal Mukherjee) case was that the complainant residing at BE 13, Salt Lake, Kolkata-64 had one residential domestic power connection at the said 3-storied premises when the ground floor thereof was tenanted under Shri Kishan Chand Damani, who had a separate domestic electric connection with no-objection from the complainant/landlord, where initial load of the tenant’s power connection was since augmented without complainant’s express approval. Subsequently, Sri Damani was evicted from the given tenancy through long drawn court proceeding and the vacant possession of the tenanted portion of the said premises was delivered to the complainant when Sri Damani left with certain amount of electricity consumption dues. Later the authorities of the Ops/WBSEDCL disconnected the power line of Sri Damani residing previously at the ground floor of the said premises for non-payment of electricity dues, but the electric meter and other equipments relating to the tenant’s power connection continued to remain in that location in the tenanted portion. The complainant with a mind to utilize the ground floor part of the premises of her wanted to have continuity of power supply line from her independent power connection and for such purpose approached the Ops for allowing this along with options of providing independent power connection at ground floor/augmentation of existing power line with removal of the given meter and other equipments as were existing at the ground floor on account of the tenant. But these were not done and the complainant was advised to pay off the electricity consumption dues as were outstanding on account of the tenant previously residing and when the complainant tried to reason under what provisions of law or rules she was being asked to pay off the dues in respect of somebody else’s consumption, no specific provision was cited but insistence was made for payment of the said outstanding dues of the tenant. Being exasperated in her efforts with the Ops and failure to utilize the ground floor premises the complainant finally paid off the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 8864/- in respect of the service connection of her erstwhile tenant, Sri Damani, and that too under protest and then a further bill of Rs. 1924/- was slapped by the Ops towards final disconnection, which amount, however, remained unpaid. While the complainant was later informally allowed to connect ground floor with the rest of the premises on her previously existing connection in her name, the meter and/or other equipments were never removed.

Alleging deficiency of service on part of the Ops for the aforesaid activities beyond the provisions of rules and laws the complainant accordingly prayed for an order for refund of the amount of Rs. 8864/- deposited under compulsion on protest towards payment of outstanding electricity dues of her tenant, Sri Damani, along with payment of compensation for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and for passing of such other orders as deemed fit.

The Ops namely, WBSEDCL, entered appearance and contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the amount of Rs. 8864/- was paid in respect of the service connection of Sri Damani and another bill for Rs. 1924/- raised towards final disconnection of the said power connection remained still unpaid. Accordingly, disconnection could not be executed finally and, therefore, the complaint was untenable there being no deficiency of service.

The matter was heard from respective sides and the Ld. Forum below passed its judgement and order as under :-

“That the complaint dated 20.02.08 brought by the complainant under Section 12, C.P.Act stands allowed on contest.

The Ops shall make payment of an amount of Rs. 8884/- by way of refund of the outstanding dues paid from her end to the WBSEDCL on protest, within 30 days from the service of copy of this award upon them. The Ops shall further pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 200/- as compensation and an amount of Rs. 500/- as costs of this proceeding by the aforesaid period.

It shall, however, be open to the Ops to realize the outstanding dues respecting the service connection standing in the name of the erstwhile tenant – Sri K.C.Damani, if realizable at all, from the said Sri Damani bringing appropriate proceedings therefor.”



Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order the Ops in the Forum below namely, WBSEDCL, filed this Appeal stating inter alia that the complainant could not make any prayer for refund of the outstanding dues of Rs. 8864/- already paid in the account of the erstwhile consumer. Arguing that the Ops were empowered to recover the outstanding dues in respect of the premises before granting a new connection or for restoration of supply line as provided under Electricity Act, 2003, it was stated that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the husband of the original complainant, since deceased, was substituted alone in her place without impleading other legal heirs as parties in the complaint petition, which order was bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. Stating that the claim of refund was not permissible under COPRA in the case of deficiency in service it was pointed out that the complainant never made any claim for new connection and the given payment towards outstanding dues of the tenant was not a pre-condition for any new connection. Accordingly, the Appellants prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order the same being without jurisdiction and bad in law.

The Respondent namely, Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, substituted complainant in the complaint case, entered appearance and stated inter alia that there being no nexus proved between the Respondent and the erstwhile tenant in regard to power consumption in respect of the outstanding bill, the Appellants/Ops had no case to compel the Respondent to pay off the dues of the erstwhile tenant. It was also pointed out that firstly the outstanding amount in respect of the erstwhile tenant should have been adjusted with the security deposit lying with the Appellant and secondly, the changed address of the erstwhile tenant was brought to the notice of the Appellant who purposely chose not to pursue the claim and realize the given outstanding but forced and created a situation where the poor Respondent was in a way compelled to be subjected to the Appellant’s effective threat and coercion. Referring to the correspondence between the parties, as were placed in the Forum, the Respondent pointed out that the date of having possession of the ground floor premises through court process and the period of consumption bill outstanding in respect of the tenant unequivocally leave no room for any conjecture of reason as was sought to be stated by the Appellants. It was also submitted that the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below was perfectly in order and should accordingly be affirmed.

DISCUSSION :-

A. The matter was heard from respective sides with filing of respective WNA. Admittedly Sri K.C.Damani was a tenant of the Respondent/Complainant who had independent power connection on initial no-objection from the Respondent. Admittedly the tenant was evicted on court orders when the vacant possession was delivered on 8.7.07. As it appears from the record, the tenant left without payment of his power consumption dues amounting to Rs. 8864/- which accrued during his period of stay in previous months. Tenant’s power line was since disconnected by the Appellants for non-payment of electricity dues, but the meter and other relevant equipments continued to remain at the said ground floor premises. Subsequently, on approach by the complainant/Respondent for ensuring power supply to the ground floor of the said premises from his own power connection as was existing and for a new connection at the ground floor/augmentation, if need be, the Respondent for realization of the said dues through adjustment of security deposit/from the erstwhile tenant in his new address was advised by the Appellants to pay off the said outstanding dues of Rs. 8864/- and no amount of reasoning by the Respondent was fruitful. Finally the Respondent paid off the said amount on protest when he was allowed to energise the ground floor from his/her own independent and existing connection through his own electrician. But the electric meter and the related equipments were not removed, against which a bill was raised for Rs. 1920/-, which remained unpaid.

B. The foregoing position of fact was analysed in the light of applicable rules under Electricity Act, 2003 as amended, when the Ld. Forum below rightly concluded that inducing the Respondent/Complainant and/or creating a situation where the complainant was compelled to pay off the dues in respect of his/her erstwhile tenant was an act of deficiency of service on part of the OPs/Appellants and accordingly passed order for refund of the said amount of Rs. 8864/- with orders of cost and compensation. We find no impropriety whatsoever in the said judgement and order where firstly, no nexus between the landlord and the tenant could be proved in respect of the outstanding dues under a condition that the given tenant had to be evicted through a very long drawn process of law and the only purpose of the Respondent/Complainant was to utilize the previously tenanted portion of his own premises. On a careful examination of records and submissions we find that the complainant who was a nonagenarian since substituted by another nonagenarian was made to run from pillar to post and contrary to all process of law and rules quite wrongly and inhumanly, was induced to pay off somebody else’s dues fully knowing the circumstances and conditions where the only purpose of the Respondent was to utilize her/his ground floor part of the same premises, where an independent domestic power line existed in his/her own name.

C. On the issue of not impleading all relevant parties in the complaint case post substitution, the Appellant not having challenged the order of substitution at an appropriate stage, we find no impropriety in the order of the Ld. Forum below. Accordingly, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed on contest with cost the same being without any substance and merit.



O R D E R :-

The Appeal is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this judgement and order. The judgement and order passed in the Ld. Forum below is accordingly affirmed. The Appellant is further directed to immediately remove the meter and other electrical equipments still existing at the ground floor of previously tenanted part of premises of the Respondent within 30 (thirty) days ensuring regularization/ augmentation/new connection as appropriate, suiting the requirement of the Respondent/Complainant subject to usual formalities and payment of requisite charges as laid down under law, but no charge due in respect of the previous tenant namely, Shri K.C.Damani, could be realized from the Respondent on which the Appellants would be at liberty to take steps as provided under law. Payment of cost and execution of the orders of the Ld. Forum below along with compliance of the direction as above will be required to be completed within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the judgement and order and on default, further cost of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per day will be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent/Complainant for the period of default.



MEMBER MEMBER