State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Cese Limited & Ors. vs Shri Roshan Kumar Gupta, Son Of ... on 18 July, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO FA/855/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 09/10/2012 in Case No.CC/31/2012 of Unit-II, Kolkata DF) DATE OF FILING : 09.11.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 18.07.2013 APPELLANT : 1. M/s. CESC LIMITED C E S C House, Kolkata-700 001, and District Engineer, CESC Ltd. (Central Regional Office) CESC house, Kolkata-700 001, Represented by the General Manager(Legal) C E S C Limited, 6, Church Lane, Kolkata-700 001 RESPONDENT : 1. SHRI ROSHAN KUMAR GUPTA, Son of Bhagwan Dasgupta, 14, Chhatu Babu Lane, Kolkata-700 014. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER :
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag FOR THE APPELLANT :
Mr. D.B. Chaudhuri, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Ms. Keka Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate ______________________________________________________________________ Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.10.2012 in Case No. 31/2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the complaint on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and directed the OP CESC to effect service connection in the shoproom of the Complainant at 4, Chhatu Babu Lane, within one month from the date of the order and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) within the stipulated period.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in his petition of complaint, in a nutshell, is that he is a tenant of the premises concerned since the year of 2010. He has no electric meter. So, he made an application for new connection for domestic purpose to the CESC Ltd. in 2010, who issued a letter to him on the same date stating that an inspection will be carried out at the aforesaid premises within a very short date, which was done. But, the CESC Ltd. did not take any action for installation of new meter. Lastly, the CESC Ltd. wrote a letter to him on 27.05.2011 informing that there is some outstanding dues of the aforesaid premises and without settling the said dues, the CESC Ltd. is unable to give a new supply to him. He has no nexus with the aforesaid defaulter consumer. So, the CESC Ltd. has no power to claim such amount from him. Accordingly, the complaint case.
On the other hand, the case of the OPs/Appellants in their W.V. is that the Complainant had applied for new supply for domestic purpose and after scrutinizing the said application, one letter bearing No. LCC/1265/2010 dated 01.11.2010 was issued to the Complainant stating therein that a sum of Rs.13,157/- is lying recoverable from one Sri S. Gupta, a registered consumer of the OPs, whose supply was disconnected on 16.06.2003 for unauthorized use of electricity. It revealed from local enquiry that the Complainant is a family member of the said person and he has tangible nexus as beneficiary and also that he stayed in the said premises long before 2010. Further, the Complainant has annexed with the complaint a photocopy of the front side of the identity card issued by the Election Commission, which was issued in the year 2005. The reverse side of the of the identity card would show the address of the Complainant, which he intentionally did not annex and the same is highly suspicious. It is an absurdity that the monthly rent is only Rs.3,000/- per month as a new tenant in the year 2010, which is situated in the Central Kolkata. Accordingly, the Complainant shall be required to pay the outstanding dues of the disconnected consumer in view of the provisions of Regulation 13.9 of the West Bengal Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licencees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulation, 2010. So, the complaint be dismissed in limine with cost.
It is to be considered if the impugned order is sustainable in law and on facts, or not.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Respondent has applied in 2010 for a new domestic meter on the basis of his alleged tenancy in that year. He has filed the 1st page of the Voter Identity Card but not the 2nd page, which could have shown the date of issue of it. There is no limitation for claiming outstanding dues for unauthorized use of electricity, which should be paid by the Respondent as he has a good nexus with the previous consumer. He has referred the decisions of the Honble National Commission in R.P. Nos. 4001 & 4002/2007 and in R.P. No. 1087/2010 [(III (2010) CPJ 317 (NC)] and a decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rashi Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board And Ors., Equivalent citation :
2007 (I) CHN 210.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, however, has submitted that there is after all no kind of any document of any nexus in between the Respondent and the erstwhile consumer. Onus is upon the CESC Ltd. to show any proximate connection and also the tenancy of the Respondent before 2010. Further, case of unauthorized use of electricity cannot stand as there is no criminal case for it. He has relied upon the following decisions in seriatim:-
1. Three decisions of this Commission first, FA No.122/2011, secondly, Case No. 53/A/2007, reported in (2008) 1 WBLR (CPSC) 234, and thirdly, FA No. 345/2012;
2. Two decisions of the Honble Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 3730 (W) of 2000 with W.P. No. 4934 (W) of 2000 and in WP No. 1988 of 1997; and
3. Two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as reported in (2004) 3 SCC 587 and 2010 (4) ICC 423.
From the materials on record, it can hardly be said that the Appellants either have proved by any tangible evidence of nexus in between the Respondent and previous consumer nor have ventured to do so by any plausible evidence. The onus squarely befell upon the Appellants to prove the case of any kind of nexus, which is the bone of contention, which, however, they failed to discharge. Accordingly, there is found to be no material to hold of any nexus of the Respondent with the previous consumer of the Appellants. In any case, Voter Identity Cards 2nd page does not go too far to establish any nexus in the matter. So, naturally, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order as passed by the Ld. District Forum. As such, the appeal fails.
Hence, Ordered, that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent but with any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER