Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
The Ld. Advocates for both sides are present.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment dt. 30.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III allowing the Consumer Complaint Case being No.CC/677/2017 on contest with a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.32,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as the litigation cost within 60 days from the date of the Order with a stipulation clause regarding payment of interest @9% per annum till realisation the Appellants/Opposite Parties preferred this Appeal.
The fact of the case as lodged in the Memorandum of Appeal is like that the Respondent/Complainant has two electric meters in his premises No. 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045 having meter no.367375 consumer no.07120098018 installed on 06.12.2016 and another is at premises no. 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700019. Both electric meters have one mailing address at the premises no. 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700019.
According to the Appellants there was a direct nexus between the said two meters of the Respondent at his two residences in Calcutta in different places. The Respondent avoided making payment of electricity dues in respect of one meter situated at 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045. According to the Appellants, they covered its outstanding bills by adjusting with another meter of the Respondent at 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700019. According to the Appellants as per clause 3.1 Regulation No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013, West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 the CESE Ltd. as a licensee is authorised to recover outstanding dues of Rs.24,170/-.
The Respondent lodged the Complainant before the Ld. District Consumer Forum at Kolkata, Unit-III, West Bengal being C.C. No.677/2017 alleging deficiency in service.
The Opposite Parties contested the case by filing Written Version denying the material allegations of the complaint petition along with technical pleas.
The Ld. Forum below framed following points for consideration:
- Whether there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Both sides adduced evidence.
Ld. Forum below allowed the Complaint answering the points in affirmative in favour of the Complainant.
According to the Appellants, there was no deficiency in service on their part. So, they prayed for allowing the Appeal and setting aside the impugned Judgment.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment.
He drew my attention to the notice dt. 31.08.2017, sent to the Complainant for liquidation of outstanding amount in respect of ex-consumer no.07120098018, the erstwhile supply at the premises no. 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045. The Complainant/ Respondent in his letter of reply dt. 26.09.2017 alleged that the said notice was bad in law. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent brought my attention to the notice dt. 09.10.2017, sent to the Complainant by the CESC, wherefrom it appeared that following the application of the Complainant they provided a new meter supply at premises no.162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045 through meter no.3673375 and after installation of the said meter the Complainant was enjoying electricity till 11.06.2014.
I would like to reiterate that the Complaint’s Case was that he was not owner of the premises no. 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045 at the relevant point of time and he was having a domestic meter no.07120098018 at the said premises on 31.08.2017. He received a notice regarding liquidation of ex-consumer no.07120098018 for amount of Rs.24,170/-, which was replied by the Complainant through his Advocate vide letter dt. 09.10.2017. It is also alleged by the Complainant/Respondent that the OPs/Appellants intimated him, if the aforesaid payment was not cleared, the electricity line of domestic consumer no.06032224004 in respect of the premises at premises no. 167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700019 would be disconnected.
It would reveal from the impugned judgment that the Complainant/Respondent purchased the premises at 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045 in auction sale in support of his claim. The Complainant filed a copy of sale deed from which it is evident that the Complainant purchased the said property at an auction sale and the deed was registered on 06.08.2012.
It is alleged that on receipt of application for a new meter supply from the Complainant the OPs provided a new meter on 06.12.2006 at premises at 162/A/78, Lake Gardens, Kolkata – 700045.
The fact remains that it is an absurd proposition, because on 06.12.2006 the Complainant was not owner of the said premises. So, it is not possible for him to apply on that date.
In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2109-2110 of 2004 dt.19.05.2023.
In para 59 of the said judgment, it is stated that:
“59. In Gujarat Inns (supra), another three-judge Bench of this Court held that the connection sought by auction-purchasers of properties would constitute a fresh connection. The Court held that in case of a fresh connection, the auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrear incurred by the previous owners in the absence of any specific statutory provision.”
In this context, he referred to the para no.61 of the Judgment which reads as follows:
“61. We need to highlight that the 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43 of the 2003 Act, the owner or occupier of premises can seek a supply of electricity for particular premises. Perforce, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided. For example, when a person owning an apartment in a residential complex applies for supply of electricity to such an apartment, they become a consumer only with respect to the apartment for which the application is made and to which electricity is supplied. Such a person may own another apartment to which electricity may already be supplied, but they will be considered a separate consumer with respect to the second apartment.”
In this context, he also referred para 62 of the Judgment which reads as:
“62. In Gujarat Inns.(supra), this Court held that an application for electricity by an auction-purchaser will constitute fresh connection even though the premises are the same. The reasoning is based on the correct assumption that supply of electricity is with respect to the consumer, and not the premises. Therefore, even if the premises may be the same to which electricity had already been supplied, it will be considered as a fresh connection in the situation where a different applicant, in that case an auction-purchaser, applies for supply of electricity.”
My attention was drawn to electric bill of May 2014 addressed to the Dharmendra Sharma, the present Respondent at167, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata – 700019, wherefrom it appears the bill for Rs.24,170/- was in respect of a closed account.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent also referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2019(5) CHN (CAL) 93,C.O. No.2674 of 2008, wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High observed, the petitioner cannot be saddled with liability of erstwhile owner. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent also referred to a decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, reported in 2017(5) CHN (CAL) 11, W.P. No.3052(W) of 2017, wherein it was held that the Court found that the demand for the late payment surcharge for the first time after a period of two years when such sum became first due was illegal, contrary to the provision contained in section 56(2) of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and was set aside. Since the disconnection of electricity was solely on the ground of non-deposit of the late payment surcharge, such action cannot be sustained. The Distribution Company was directed to restore the supply of electricity within 72 hours from the date.”
So, it would reveal from this discussion that two meters are different and consumer numbers are also different. It is also apparent from the position of law cited above that a petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility of the previous owner of the premises when the consumer has electric connection in a separate premises.
Considering the factual aspects of the case, along with the position of law cited above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement.
Accordingly, A/167/2020 is dismissed on contest.
The impugned order is upheld. There shall be no order as to the costs. Order of stay, if there is any in connection with this Appeal, stands vacated.
Let a copy of the impugned Judgment be sent to the District Consumer Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III.
The Joint Registrar of this Commission is directed to do the needful accordingly.
