The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of opposite party no. 1 to impeach the final order/judgment dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 137 of 2017. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by respondent, Shri Santanu Chatterjee under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the appellant and pro-respondent no. 2/opposite parties to give electric connection to the premises of the complainant/respondent after taking of requisite fees from the complainant/respondent.
The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he is a resident of Municipal Holding No. 72/62/55, Mohalla – Pratappur, Rathtala Barabagan, P.O.+P.S.+Dist. – Hooghly within the local limits of Ward No. 23 of Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality. The said property was originally belonged to the father of the complainant named Anil Kumar Chatterjee, since deceased. The said Anil Kumar Chatterjee passed away on 10.04.2013, who had an electric connection in the said premises being Consumer ID No. 163178990 and after death of his father the said connection was enjoyed by his brother named Shri Saibal Chatterjee and sister named Smt Sukla Mukherjee. The complainant had applied for a new connection in the office of O.P. No. 1 on payment of requisite fees of Rs. 10/-. The opposite party enquired about feasibility of the connection to be drawn and Way Leave position of existing electric connection. However, all on a sudden opposite party no. 1 issued one Memo on 11.05.2017 thereby expressed their inability to effect connection until and unless the complainant pays the outstanding dues of Rs. 9,210/- towards the electric connection stood in the name of his father. The petitioner on receipt of that Memo met the Station Manager and Divisional Manager for times without number and requested them to provide electric connection in his occupied portion but none of the opposite parties paid any heed to the request of him. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs like – (a) an order directing the opposite parties to effect electric connection; (b) an award of Rs. 5,000/- for causing harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for illegal withholding electric connection etc.
The appellant being O.P. No. 1 by filing a written version resisted the allegation of the complainant by stating that during scrutinising the documents and inspection held in the house of the complainant, it was revealed that there was one meter existing in the premises and service connection was disconnected from 22.01.2016 and now an amount of Rs. 9,210/- still due and payable. Therefore, in terms of Notification No. 55 of W.B.E.R.C. and Clause No. 3.4.2 they are eligible to recover the dues of previous defaulting consumer when a nexus exists between the present consumer and the previous consumer in whose name there is an outstanding of Rs. 9,210/-.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgment/final order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the appellant and pro-respondent no. 2 as indicated above. To assail the said order the O.P. No. 1 has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and respondent no. 1.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Clause 3.4.2 of Regulation no. 55 of W.B.E.R.C. dated 07.08.2013 authorises the licensee to recover the amount from the defaulting or previous consumer in respect of the outstanding dues against the premises if nexus is established. Expanding the argument, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondent no. 1 has been stayed in the premises of his father where the electric line was disconnected due to non-payment of dues. It does not require any proof that there was a nexus between the defaulting consumer and the new consumer. He has finally submitted that if the amount of outstanding dues of Rs. 9,210/- is paid, there is no predicament on the part of the licensing authority to give electric connection to the respondent no. 1 after following the legal formalities.
Per contra, Ld. Advocate for respondent no. 1 has simply submitted that besides the respondent no. 1 there are other two co-owners of the property and as such the amount payable should be levied by issuing notice upon all the three legal heirs of Anil Kumar Chatterjee, since deceased.
Undisputedly, the respondent no. 1 of Rathtala Barabagan, P.O.+P.S.+Dist. – Hooghly has been living in the premises belong to his father named Anil Kumar Chatterjee, who passed away on 10.04.2013 leaving behind the respondent no. 1 as his son, Shri Saibal Chatterjee – another son and one Smt Sukla Mukherjee as daughter. It is also not in dispute that the father of respondent no. 1 had an electric connection in his name in the scheduled property being Consumer ID No. 163178990 and that service connection was enjoyed by the father of respondent no. 1 during his lifetime and after the death of his father the said connection was disconnected from 22.01.2016 for non-payment of Rs. 9,210/-.
In such a situation, for appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to record the provisions of Clause 3.4.2 of Notification No. 55 of W.B.E.R.C. dated 7th August, 2013 which reproduces below:
“3.4.2. The licensee shall be eligible to recover from a new and subsequent consumer (s) the dues of the previous and defaulting consumers in respect of the same premises only if a nexus between the previous and the defaulting consumer (s) and the new consumer (s) in respect of the same premises is proved. The onus of proving a nexus, if claimed by a licensee, shall lie on the licensee”.
Needless to say, the Regulation prescribed in Clause 3.4.2 as mentioned above has a statutory force which flows from the Electricity Act, 2003 itself. The nexus between a father and son does not require any proof because the respondent no. 1 has been living in the premises where his father used to reside and enjoyed the electric connection where a sum of Rs. 9,210/- is still due and payable. In other words, the respondent no. 1/complainant has got the property from his father by way of inheritance and enjoying the same and as such the respondent no. 1 must also bear the brunt of the property and he cannot shift his burden to the common man i.e. tax payers money.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is modified to the extent that only on payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 9,210/-, the appellant and pro-respondent no. 2/opposite parities to give the service connection to the premises of respondent no. 1/complainant within seven (7) days thereof after observing all the legal formalities.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.
