Delhi

North East

CC/147/2014

Najuk Jahan - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 147/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mst. Najuk Jahan (Main Complainant) W/o Mustak Ahmed R/o B-46, Khasra No.1/91 Gali No. 2, Shastri Park, Near Jain Mandir, Delhi-110053. Shri Mustak H/o Mst. Najuk Jahan and Mohd. Faraj S/o Mst. Najuk Jahan and Shri Mustak (Connected Cases)	Complainants
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd Office D.G.M. Commercial YVR, C-7, Near Jain Mandir, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. Through its Commercial Manager	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

30.04.2014 09.05.2018 10.05.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

Order Passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. The present complaint is tagged alongwith two other connected matters vide complaint cases No. 144/14 titled Mustak Ahmed Vs BSES YPL Ltd and 148/14 titled Mohd Faraj Ahmed Vs BSES YPL Ltd. Najuk Jahan, the complainant in the present case No. 147of 14 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) is the wife of Mustak Ahmed (complainant in case No. 144/14) and mother of Mohd Faraj Ahmed (complainant in case No. 148/14) and the complainant and Mustak Ahmed are related to each other as wife and husband and are parents of Mohd Faraj Ahmed. On request of all the parties, the present case is treated as the main case and therefore a common order is being passed in the present complaint case enforceable/applicable for the other two tagged complaints as well.

The case of the complainants is that the complainant is registered consumer/user of Domestic Electricity Connection No. 150285661, Mustak Ahmed is registered consumer/user of Domestic Electricity Connection No. 150261773 and Mohd Faraj Ahmed is registered consumer/user of Domestic Electricity Connection No. 150268353, all connections installed by OP at their residence B-46 Khasra No. 1/91, Gali No.2, Shastri Park near Jain Mandir, Delhi-53 (Najuk Jahan) B-46 3^rd Floor, Khasra No. 1/91, Gali No.2, Shastri Park near Jain Mandir, Delhi-53 (Mustak) and B-46, 1^st Floor, Khasra No. 1/91, Gali No.2, Shastri Park Near jain Mandir, Delhi-53 (Mohd Faraj). The complainant is the owner of the said premises, having purchased the same from one Shri Jahid Miyan @ Sayed Jahid in 1996 vide deed of will dated 31^st January 1996 and had applied for new connection sometime in early November 2011 from the OP and all the complainants stated that they were paying electricity bills to the OP regularly since installations of meters/CA. However all the complainants received a notice dated 26.12.2013 from the OP regarding transfer of outstanding dues for a sum of Rs. 83,932/- in respect of disconnected CA No. 101183538 installed at the said premises in the name of the previous owner Shri Jahid Miyan to their respective feeding connections on 1/3 basis in continuation to earlier notice bearing no. DGM (COMML)/ YVR/821 dated 17.12.2013 asking upon the complainants to make the payment of afore mentioned amount failing which the dues shall be transferred to their respective CA Numbers. The complainants have stated that vide present notice the OP, illegally and unlawfully transferred the said illegal dues against the complainants to the tune of Rs. 29,400/-, 29,400/- and 28,700/- to their respective CA Nos. The complainants were constrained to issue legal notice dated 23^rd January 2014 to the OP calling upon the OP to call off the above mentioned bills forthwith. However, despite the legal notice, the OP sent illegal and wrong bills to complainants for February-March 2014 payable by 07.04.2014 of Rs. 32,740/-, 31,130/- and Rs. 30,320/- to the complainants thereby transferring the illegal dues of some other consumer to the CAs of the complainants for which the complainants were not responsible in any manner. The complainants further stated that the officials of OP were illegally and unlawfully harassing the complainants and threatening them of disconnection of electricity connection and removal of meters in case the complainants do not deposit the amounts raised by OP on them for the period February-March 2014 payable on or before 07.04.2014. Therefore the complainants were constrained to file the present complaints alleging deficiency in service against the OPs and prayed to this Forum to restrain the OPs from recovering illegal and unlawful demands of Rs. 27,975.40/-, Rs. 27,968.63/- and Rs. 27,975.90/- raised against their respective CA numbers and also prayed for restraining the OP from removing of meter Number 11298897, 11289525 and 11289526 installed in their respective premises against the allotted CA Numbers. The complainants also prayed for issuance of directions to OP to withdraw the illegal transfer of arrears of Rs. 27,975.40/-, 27,968.63/- and Rs. 27,975.90/- on the complainants and also to issue amended bills. The complainants have also prayed for directions to the OP to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- each to all three complainants as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainants towards litigation expenses.

2. Notice was issued to the OP which entered appearance and filed its written statement on 06.06.2014. The OP took the preliminary objection that the outstanding dues of Rs. 83,932/- were transferred against the complainants on their respective CAs on meters installed on their premises after following due process of law. The OP urged that the premises of the complainants were inspected by officials of OP on 19.07.2013 when it was found that the supply of the disconnected connection bearing CA No. 101183538 had been extended stealthily from the CAs of the complainants and therefore as the dues were pending on the disconnected connection, the complainants were given notices on 17.12.2013 and on 26.12.2013 whereby the complainants were asked by the OP to deposit the outstanding dues failing which legal action for unauthorized use of electricity/illegal extension of electricity would be initiated against them and complainants were also given an opportunity to reply to the said notice, if any which the complainants failed to thereby admitting the contents of the notices. The OP therefore justified the transfer of outstanding dues of Rs. 83,932/- in equal ratios against the respective CAs of the complainants. The OP attached the copy of site inspection report dated 19.07.2013 and notices dated 17.12.2013 and 26.12.2013 to complainants alongwith speed post POD receipts alongwith its written statement. The OP further elaborated that the above mentioned dues were of disconnected CA which was registered in the name of Sayed Jahid which connection was disconnected on 23.12.2012 by OP and complainant (Najuk Jahan) was sanctioned CA of domestic category for 1 KW on 10.12.2011 and that the CAs of other two complainants were sanctioned on 17.11.2011 for 3 KW each under domestic category at the common  residential premises. The OP further stated that the complainant Najuk Jahan had purchased the said property in 1996 from Sayed Jahid which shows that at the time of installation of connections in the name of complainants, the connection in the name of previous Sayed Jahid existed which was disconnected on 23.12.2012 by OP due to non-payment of bill of Rs. 83,932/- while the complainants were enjoying the electricity from CA No. 101183538 in the name of Sayed Jahid all this while which therefore became payable by the complainants. The OP further took the defence that the consumers give an undertaking at the time of applying for a new connection that “I undertake to clear all accumulated / outstanding dues against the premises and the licensor is authorized to recover the same from me”. The OP also filed online printout of CA No allotted in the name of Sayed Jahid where the last billing month was April 2011. Lastly the OP urged that since the complainant was the subsequent purchaser of the property by way of will and had applied for new connection, she is therefore liable to pay the dues and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement were filed by complainants wherein the complainants stated that the family had shifted to the premises in April 2011 after 15 years of its purchase (1996) and had applied to the OP for electricity connections in November 2011. The said connections of complainants were energized by the OP on 10.12.2011 (Najuk Jahan) (not on 10.11.2011 as stated by OP in written statement), 17.11.2012 and 17.11.2012 (Mustak and Faraj Ahmed) and till January 2014, the bills were raised regularly and properly by the OP and paid promptly by the complainants without any dispute. It was all of a sudden that the OP arbitrarily included Rs. 27,975.40/- in the bill of the complainant for the period February – March 2014 and that of Rs. 27,968.63/- and Rs. 27,975/- in the bills of other two complainants Mustak and Faraj as “other charges” whereas no such details of ‘outstanding dues’ were ever intimated by the OP to the complainants at the time of granting electricity connections to them and complainants called upon the OP to produce all unpaid bills on part of Sayed Jahid which had accumulated to an exorbitant amount of Rs. 83,932/-. The complainants relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Isha Marbles Etc Vs BSEB and Ors (SC) 1 (1995) BC 259 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that where there is no charge over property which comes to be owned by the subsequent purchaser who applies the electricity connection, such person cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears since what matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the agency / board and the board cannot seek enforcement of contractual liability against 3^rd party. This judgment has also been followed in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd vs Gujrat Inns Pvt Ltd and Ors (2004) V AD (SC) 470. The complainants also relied upon provision of Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act 2003 which specifically provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”. The complainants further raised objection that if the bill has been raised and no payment was made by earlier consumer Sayed Jahid, the OP was under obligation to disconnect the electricity supply immediately within one month as per law instead of letting the defaulter continue to enjoy the electricity and let a huge amount be accumulated and then include the same in the bill of the new consumer which act is of OP highly unfair trade practice and grossest kind of deficiency of service. The complainants further submitted that it was statutory obligation of OP to raised bills on previous occupier as per rules and regulation but perhaps such bills were never raised or if raised, no recovery proceeding were initiating against the defaulter who continued to enjoy electricity supply in collusion and conspiracy with OP and it is only in view of such negligence on the part of electricity companies that section 56 of Electricity Act was introduced by the Parliament which provided that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear. In the present case, the connection of the complainants were energized by the OP on 10.12.2011, 17.11.2011 and 17.11.2011 and the complainants were never intimated about any outstanding dues till January 2014 and therefore recovery was time barred the same being more than two years old. The complainants further denied application of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Vs Anis Ahmed relied upon by OP in its written statement on grounds that complainants had never ever committed theft of electricity and had rather replied to notice dated 17.12.2014 of OP vide legal notice to the notice sent by OP dated 23.01.2015 and further stated that the inspection report dated 19.07.2013 filed by OP was a self created document having no evidentiary value. The complainants further denied the submission made by the OP that the connection in the name of Sayed Jahid was disconnected on 23.12.2012 and that the complainants were enjoying electricity from his CA No / Meter on grounds that there was no question of sanction of new connection by the OP to the complainants on 10.12.2011, 17.11.2011 and 17.11.2011 in view of clear provisions of 2.1 (IV) of “General Condition of Supply” Tariff order dated 23^rd May 2011 issued by DERC and further denied liability to pay any such dues and alleged the threat by OP to disconnect the supply of electricity for nonpayment of illegal and arbitrary outstanding dues as high handedness on the part of OP. Lastly the complainant denied that simply because the complainant had submitted copy of Will of premises in question with the OP for obtaining electricity connection, she cannot be held liable to pay dues. The complainants attached their respective Field Service Request Executive Job Slip issued by OP for installation of CAs.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by the complainants on 12.09.2014 and by OP on 14.11.2014.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. In the written arguments filed by complainants, the complainants raised arguments by way of questionnaire for consideration of this Forum in justification /support of their grievance qua the OP which are has hereunder:-

1. Whether any details of outstanding dues of 83,932/- were ever communicated by OP to complainants at the time of granting of electricity connection in November 2011 to which the complainants have argued in the negative.
2. Whether the action of OP to first accumulate such heavy amount of dues of its old consumer and then include the same in the bill of a new consumer was highly unfair trade practice and grossest kind of deficiency in service to which the complainants have argued in the affirmative stating that the OP should have disconnected the electricity supply obligatorily  immediately within one month of default by the erstwhile consumer instead of letting him use the electricity without payment of bill and letting outstanding accumulate to a huge amount and failure to do so by OP is unfair trade practice and grossest deficiency of service.
3. Whether any outstanding dues can be recovered from the consumer after a period of two years to which the complainants have argued in the negative invoking the provision of section 56 of Electricity Act 2003 barring the electricity companies from recovering more than two year old outstanding dues since it became “first due” and shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and no disallowing disconnection of supply of electricity in such cases. In this regard the complainants have placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in BSES Rajdhani Pvt Ltd vs Bishan Devi in Appeal No. FA 7 of 904 decided on 18.11.2008.
4. Whether the OP can be allowed to take advantage of its wrong doing to which the complainants submitted in the negative and placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in the case of BSES Rajdhani Pvt Ltd vs Shri Jagveen Singh passed in Appeal No. FA 423 of 2006 decided on 22.07.2008 on the law point.
5. Whether there is any charge over the property to which the complainants argued in the negative relying on judgment placed by them passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court In Isha Marble and Ahmedabad Electricity Company case laws.
6. Whether the complainants have ever committed theft of electricity as alleged by OP to which the complainants argued in the negative as also that it is not even the OP’s case anymore and no evidence to that effect was produced by the OP and therefore the reliance by OP on the case of UP Power Corporation vs Anis Ahmad (Supreme Court) by the OP in the present case is erroneous and inapplicable.
7. Lastly whether the complainants ever authorized the OP to recover the dues as alleged by OP to which the complainants have argued in the negative that they had never undertaken to clear any accumulated / outstanding dues against the premises or authorized OP to do so.

6. In the written arguments filed by the OP, the OP argued that the connection in the name of complainants were energized in November 2011 and it was only on site inspection by the OP on 19.07.2013 at the premises of the complainants that it was found out that their three live connections were being fed by the connection bearing CA No. 101183538 registered in the name of Sayed Jahid, the supply of which had been disconnected by OP on 23.12.2012. Therefore notices were sent to all the three complainants on 17.12.2012 and 26.12.2012 and after following due process of law, the dues of all three complainants were transferred in equal amount to their respective CAs. The OP further argued that at the time of energization of connection in the name of complainants, the connection in the name of Sayed Jahid was live and it was this Sayed Jahid from whom the complainant had purchased the present 50 Sq. yards built up premises. The OP argued that however at the time of release of new connections, live connection dues are not counted in outstanding dues head and hence new connections were released without any demand towards outstanding dues. The OP further argued that Delhi Supply Code and Performances Standards Regulations -2007 (DERC Supply Code) has made a provision under regulation 49 (ii) for recovery of old outstanding dues from the registered consumer/user. The OP relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ms. Madhu Garg and Ors Vs North NDPL decided on 22.03.2006 in LPA 223-24/2006 in which the Hon’ble High Court had dealt with the issue of transfer of electricity dues of previous owner to subsequent purchaser in which the Hon’ble Delhi high Court was of the view that if arrears of electricity charges outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with contractual claims of damages, it would encourage dishonest consumer to raise some dispute or the other in respect of such arrears and evade consequences of nonpayment of electricity charges viz disconnection / non resumption of supply thereby distinguishing the decision by Hon’ble SC in Isha Marble Vs BSEB. The Hon’ble High Court has also observed in this judgment that the law applicable in Delhi requires a statutory condition of supply subject to payment of outstanding dues before resumption / continuation of electricity supply. The OP placed on record section 56 of Electricity Act 2003 and copy of Regulation 49 in chapter VI-Disconnection and Reconnection as per DERC regulations in support if its defence. The OP also placed on record electricity bills raised by OP in the name of Sayed Jahid for the month of May 2011 till March 2012 payable on dated 02.06.2011, 01.08.2011, 04.10.2011, 01.12.2011, 01.02.2012 and 20.03.2012 alongwith its written arguments filed in connected case no. 148/14 and a chart of billing month May 2011 till June 2013 with respect to CA No. 101183538 in the name of Sayed Jahid and interim application was filed by the complainants under Section 13 (3) (B) of CPA on 24.12.2014 for restraining OP for disconnecting electricity supply in their premises and this Forum vide order pronounced on the same date had granted stay against disconnection subject to the complainants depositing a sum of Rs. 7500/- on or before 7^th January 2015 in the office of OP which the complainants have complied with.  
7. We have heard the rival contention of the parties in terms of their respective / connected cases and the provision of law viz Electricity Act and DERC regulations and judgments relied upon / cited by both the parties in support of their cases/defence. We have also thoroughly perused the case files and documentary evidence placed on record by way of pleadings filed by all the parties.

It is an admitted fact that the complainants had applied for electricity connection in November 2011 from the OP with respect to the said premises which was purchased by the complainant from one Sayed Jahid in 1996 and the complainants had shifted in the said premises in April 2011. There was no dispute with respect to electricity bills raised and paid between the parties till January 2014.

In the written statement filed by the OP in case No. 147/14, in the inspection report dated 04.11.2011 for installation of new connection, under the head ‘Existing Meters Details’, the OP has made hand written remark ‘one meter installed at site’. Further it is observed that as per the OP’s own internal computer generated document of consumer details with respect to Sayed Zahid, the last billing month was April 2011 which ‘coincidentally’ was the same month when the complainants have shifted in the said premises. The first disputed bill raised by the OP to the complainant is dated 07.04.2014 for the period February-March 2014 in which in addition to the amount of the electricity bill, other charges have been levied by the OP on the complainants which goes to show that from April 2011 till next almost three years, no charges against any outstanding dues as alleged by OP was claimed by the OP from the complainants whereas the electricity connections with respect to the complainants were energized by the OP in November 2011 itself. The OP by its own admission in Para 3 of its written statement stated that the connection of Sayed Jahid was disconnected on 23.12.2012 to which the complainants had raised a valid argument that the OP had thus allowed the usage of electricity without payment of bills to Sayed Jahid for more than one year eight months going by OP’s own admission of last bill raised on Sayed Jahid in April 2011 and electricity connection (CA) disconnected on 23.12.2012. The complainants further argued that the inspection report dated 19.07.2013 filed by the OP was a self generated report of inspection allegedly done by the OP and had no signature of any independent / public witness thereon. The complainants also argued that the notice dated 17.12.2013 issued by the OP was never served / received by the complainants and OP has not filed any postal receipt to prove otherwise. The complainants and OP have taken respective defence of section 56 (2) and 56 (1) of Electricity Act 2003 which deals with disconnection of supply in default of payment and OP placed on record the relevant section. The complainants took the defence under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act which bars the electricity supplying agency from claiming any sum due from any consumer after period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut of the supply of the electricity on grounds that the dues pending, if any against Sayed Jahid were since more than two years old, not recoverable therefore. The OP took the defence of Section 56 (1) of electricity act which in our opinion shall not come to its defence since the OP has been unable to place on record any documentary evidence with respect to any notice given to Sayed Jahid by OP for payment of dues or disconnection of electricity connection since last bill raised in April 2011 till disconnection in December 2012 and we therefore find force in the argument of the complainants that the OP let Sayed Jahid continue to use the electricity connection without payment for almost one year and eight months and failed to inspect the site/ meter or disconnect the electricity supply line of Sayed Jahid and let the dues keep mounting to a huge figure of Rs. 83,932/- all this while till inspection carried out by OP in July 2014 after raising the bill in ‘other charges’ on the complainants payable in April 2014. The OP took the defence under arguments addressed with respect to Section 49 of DERC pertaining to notice of disconnection on non-payment of licensee dues in case consumer defaults in payment of dues in which case OP can disconnect the consumer installation on expiry of 15 days time given in the said notice by removing the service line / meter. However the OP did not take any action, much less any prompt coercive measure against Sayed Jahid despite him being a consistent defaulter which is OP’s own case against him that these dues of Rs. 83,932/- pertain to the CA No registered under the name of Sayed Jahid despite which the OP did not disconnect the electricity supply or de-install the electricity meter on the premises either in April 2011 or in November 2011 when the complainants had already shifted in the present premises and had applied for new electricity connection but did so in December 2012. Further the OP argued on the lines of power vested in it by the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (DERA), under which the DERC issued Tariff Order dated May 23, 2001 which stipulates “General Condition of Supply” clause 2.1 whereof provides that supply of electricity in all cases is subject to the condition that (iv) the applicant deposit development charges, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including outstanding dues against the premises and / or disconnected connection (s). The OP relied upon the case law of Ms. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs NDPL passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in which the Hon’ble High Court had opined that there is no distinction between the purchaser of a premises who was aware that there were outstanding electricity dues against the previous owner/tenant, and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the new owner/ occupant before supply can be continued/restored in view of the statutory provision contained in clause 2 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply which had been quoted above. The OP further argued placing reliance on the said judgment that it was the duty of the complainants to find out if there were any outstanding electricity dues in relation to the premises and cannot be allowed to express ignorance to the same of any previous owner / tenant in view of General Condition of Supply which are statutory in nature and have been framed under Section 21 (2) of Electricity Act 1910 and Section 49 of Electricity supply Act 1948 and that the complainants had to pay the dues against the previous owner to enjoy the electricity supply. However in that case, the outstanding bills of previous owner which were raised in the name of subsequent purchase of property (Madhu Garg) pertained to period much prior to purchase of property whereas in the instant case the outstanding bill of Sayed jahid were for the period May 2011 till March 2012 when the new owners i.e. the complainants were residing in the said premises and had applied for new connections in November 2011 despite which OP neither apprised the complainants of existence of CA No. 101183538 and its live status nor raise any demand against outstanding dues pending with respect to the said CA Number for payment by the complainants as a pre condition for grant of new connection and instead sent bills levy ‘other charges’ for the month of February – March 2014 to the complainants distributing 1/3 of outstanding dues of previous amounts in their respective CAs which distinguishes the present case from Madhu Garg’s case in which she was asked to clear dues of previous owner before getting a new connection by the electricity board. The OP further argued that Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act which the complainants have taken shelter under is not attracted in the present case as ‘first due’ means when bill was raised and delivered to consumer which in the present case was done by OP by way of transfer of dues from disconnected connection to live connection of the complainant in the same premises in April 2014.However, the first bill of ‘due’ was sent by OP vide bill payable 07.04.2014 for the month February – March 2014 whereas on perusal of bills filed by the OP in CC No. 148/14 alongwith the written arguments, the OP had raised bills of Sayed Jahid for billing month May 2011 till March 2012 thereby keeping his CA live despite the complainants having shifted in the premises in April 2011 and taken new connections in November 2011 which speaks volume about the slackness, lackadaisical and casual non-committal approach and dereliction of duty on the part of OP which as rightly pointed out by the counsel of the complainant should not be allowed as it would amount to the OP taking advantage of its own act of omission and commission in as much neither the OP issued any notice to Sayed Jahid nor disconnected his electricity supply or de-install his meter despite knowledge that Sayed Jahid had not paid outstanding dues since April 2011 and the complainants had already shifted in the said premises and taken separate connections in November 2011. Therefore complainants argued that OP cannot turn around and saddle the mounting / unrecovered dues on the complainants.

8. The arguments were heard and order was reserved on 13.03.2018. However, in view of clarification sought by this Forum from both the parties regarding complainants’ time of shifting in the said premises mentioned differently in pleadings and applying for electricity connection and also details of electricity meter / status of CA No. 101183538 issued in the name of the erstwhile owner of the said premises Sayed Jahid, the complainants filed an affidavit stating that due to inadvertent typographical error, the period of shifting in the said premises has been wrongly mentioned as April 2011 instead of November 2011. In rejoinder and written arguments but correctly mentioned as November 2011 in evidence by way of affidavit which be read as correct. The OP filed additional written arguments in which the OP stated that the connection bearing CA no. 101183568 registered in the name of Sayed Jahid was continuous in use and last payment was received by the OP on 02.08.2011 and therefore the plea of the complainants that property was not in use till 2011 was not sustainable and that no such plea was taken by the complainants either in their reply of notices sent by the OP or in the complaints filed before this Forum. The OP attached copy of assessment versus realized payment against CA no. 101183538 and consumption chart from 2008 till disconnection of the said meter on 23.12.2012 at final reading. The OP further submitted that as per regulation 35 of DERC, it was the duty of consumer to keep the meter in safe custody but the complainants misplaced the meter of previous owner Sayed Jahid with the intention not to pay the outstanding dues. The OP further took the argument that under regulation 49 (ii) of DERC Delhi Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation 2007, a provision has been made for recovery of old outstanding dues from the registered consumer/user read as “The licensee may issue a disconnection notice in writing, as per section 56 of the Act, to the consumer who defaults on his payment of dues giving him fifteen clear days to pay the dues. Thereafter, the Licensee may disconnect the consumer’s installation on expiry of the said notice period by removing the Service Line / Meter or as the Licensee may deem fit. If the consumer does not make the payment within six months of the date of disconnection, such connections shall be treated as Dormant Connection”.

In rebuttal the complainant objected that the OP has not placed on record any proof that the erstwhile owner Sayed Jahid had made the last payment of electricity dues to OP on 02.08.2011 since as per OP’s own document filed with its written statement, the last bill raised on Sayed Jahid was in April 2011. The complainants further argued that the OP was empowered under regulation 49 (ii) of DERC to disconnect the CA of the defaulter Sayed Jahid for nonpayment of dues but OP never issued any disconnection notice or removed the service line/meter from the premises. The complainants further strongly objected to an all together new allegation leveled by the OP on the complainants of misplacing the meter of the previous owner and argued that regulation 49 (ii) has to be read alongwith section 56 of Electricity Act 2003 which deals with disconnection of supply in default of payment of charges for electricity the issue of “first due” meaning when bill was raised and served upon the consumer which shall not be recoverable after period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

9. The complainants have filed the judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd Vs Vijay Kumar passed in FA No. 07 of 624 on 03.03.2009 in which the Hon’ble SCDRC dealt with the landlord tenant dispute pertaining to tenant applying for fresh domestic electricity connection with BSES with no action taken by BSES thereto on grounds that there were outstanding dues against the previous owner towards the electricity connection and unless they are paid, no electricity connection can be granted. The District Forum had concluded that since the person concerned / applicant took possession of the premises in capacity of tenant, he was not liable to pay dues of the previous owner and the said decision was upheld by the Hon’ble SCDRC Delhi with directions to BSES to grant electricity connection to the applicant with observation that section 56 of Electricity Act 2003 also provides that the charges are recoverable from the person who has consumed the electricity, if at all.         
10.  We have applied our judicial mind and are of considered opinion that OP has been rather negligent, lackadaisical, procrastinatory, and deficient in service in letting electricity connection against CA No. 101183538 live and current be enjoyed by Sayed Jahid for a very long duration almost two years from April 2011 upto December 2012 without payment of bill by the owner thereof  and failing to issue any notice to him to disconnect the electricity connection or make any efforts despite powers provided to OP under provision 49 of DERC and Section 56 (1) of Electricity Act towards recovery of dues from him. The OP could not substantiate its argument of having received payment from Sayed Jahid on 02.08.2011 and on specific question put by Forum, gave an evasive reply that they have no record of payment made except that it was made in cash on his behalf by somebody. We have no reason to believe such an averment unsupported by any documentary evidence. The complainants have taken shelter under section 56 (2) of electricity act in view of the fact that there was no disconnection notice issued by OP to Sayed Jahid and nothing on record to show or prove that such sum to the tune of Rs. 83,932/- was due and payable / recoverable continuously as arrears of charges for electricity supplied by OP to Sayed Jahid and therefore such dues were not recoverable after two years when they became “first due” which time period had already lapsed by the time the disputed bills payable on 07.04.2014 were sent to the complainants by the OP transferring the dues of Sayed Jahid on the CA Numbers of the complainants.
11.  We therefore find merit and force in the complaints filed by the complainants and quash the illegal demand of Rs. 83,932/- transferred to their respective CA No. of the complainants to the tune of Rs. 27,975.40/-, Rs. 27,968.63/- and Rs. 27,975.90/- raised by OP vide bill for March 2014 payable on 07.04.2014 since they cannot be saddled with the liability of a rank stranger/previous owner as the case may be for which the OP failed to take necessary / timely action for enforcement of recovery. We further direct the OP to send revised and regular proper bills as per actual meter reading based on the consumption / usage to the complainants in future without levy of any such unlawful charges. We also direct the OP to pay a sum of  Rs. 20,000/- each to all three complainants and Rs. 5,000/- each towards litigation expenses borne by the complainants in the present cases within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on10.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member