Station Manager Nandakumar ... vs Namita Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 5562 Cal

                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

      PRESENT:
      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY

                              CO 1950 of 2014
              Station Manager Nandakumar Grp.Elect.Supply WBSEDCL
                                    VS.
                                Namita Das

 For the Petitioner                      : Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv.
                                           Ms. Rituparna Maitra, Adv.

 For the Opposite parties                : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal,Adv.
 Hearing concluded on                    : 21st August, 2023

 Judgement on                            : 25th August, 2023

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:

 1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the

order dated 19th of February, 2014 passed by the learned State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in SC Case No. F.A. 843 of 2013

arising out of order dated 28th May, 2013 passed by the learned District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur in C.C. No. 12 of 2013.

2. Briefly stated on 3rd August, 2012, the husband of Smt. Namita Das since

deceased got electrocuted while he came in contact with the electric wire hanging

from the post. The WBSEDCL was not informed about such incident till a letter

was received by the company issued by an advocate on behalf of Smt. Namita Das,

wife of the victim.

3. It is stated that in the village on behalf of the villagers enjoying electricity,

Panchayat used to pay the electric bill. Husband of the opposite party used to

earn of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Learned Consumer Forum presumed that the

monthly income of the husband in absence of any documentary proof was Rs.

3,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- towards compensation. Against the

said order WBSEDCL preferred an appeal under the statute before the State

Commissioner, but the appeal was not accepted. Hence, this petition under

consideration.

4. Mr. Srijan Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the

learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the learned Appellate

Authority passed the judgment without taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioner since was not a consumer per se, he had no locus standi to seek relief

as consumer.

5. Mr. Nayak makes me go through the definition of consumer as laid down

under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which says:-

"Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electrify with the works of a licensee, this Government or such other person, as the case may be".

6. My attention is further drawn to the provision of Section 2(d)

as laid down under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where the

consumer has been defined:-

"Section 2(d) : "Consumer" means any person who-,-

(i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly

promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person [but does not include] a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose".

7. According to Mr. Nayak, the learned State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum and the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum committed jurisdictional error by entertaining the application.

8. Refuting such contention, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel

for the opposite party submits that pursuant to the direction given by the

Consumer Forum Authority, WBSEDCL has provided electric connection.

9. Having preferred the appeal before the State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum challenging the order of the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WBSEDCL has surrendered to the

jurisdiction of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Therefore,

having complied with the direction of the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, WBSEDCL is estopped from challenging the

jurisdiction.

10. Mr. Bhattacharya makes me go through the submission made

by the learned counsel for the WBSEDCL before the learned Appellate

Forum and submits that this point of jurisdiction was never

canvassed before the authority. The petitioner, WBSEDCL cannot be

allowed to approbate and reprobate.

11. Upon plain reading of the definition "Consumer" under Section

2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it appears that consumer is a

person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee

or by any other person engaged in the business to supply electricity

to public under the Act and includes any person whose premises are

for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity

with the works of licensee.

12. From the attending facts of the case, it is admitted that the

opposite party herein approached the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum with the allegation that WBSEDCL did not supply

with electricity for his use though he has discharged his obligation by

making necessary payment. Therefore, at that point of time, when

the opposite party approached the Consumer forum he was not a

consumer per se Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

as well. The opposite party cannot be said to be a consumer.

13. It goes without saying that there cannot be any estoppel

against law which is why I refused to imbibe myself with the

submission made by Mr. Bhattacharya that having preferred appeal

against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WBSEDCL is

estopped from challenging the order impugned under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

14. As at the point of initiation of the proceeding, Namita Das, the

opposite party herein was not a consumer as defined under the

Electricity Act, 2003 or under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WBSEDCL committed

jurisdictional error by passing the order impugned and the same

should not be allowed to remain in force and should be set aside

which I accordingly do. But this order shall not by any means inspire

the WBSEDCL to interfere with the connection already given to the

opposite party, Namita Das.

15. The revisional application is thus disposed of, however without

costs.

16. Let a copy of this judgement along with lower Court record be

sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately.

17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement if applied for,

should be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite

formalities.

(SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.)