Delhi

North East

CC/116/2014

Parveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Jul 2017

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.116/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Parveen W/o Ramzan Khan R/o 700/37-A, Gali No. 23, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. C-7, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. Through its Commercial Officer.	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	25.03.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	21.07.2017

 

 

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

 

 

ORDER

1.        As per complaint complainant is a registered consumer, vide CA No. 10119494241 and CRN No., 1250194620 of the OP. All the bills issued by OP against consumption of electricity in this account were paid regularly. Complainant paid a bill lastly on 14.02.2014. Thereafter a bill of Rs. 41,160/- to be paid upto 18.03.2014 was received by the complainant from OP. The bill shows an outstanding amount of Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) and LPSC of Rs. 4,888.05 (Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Eight Rupees Five Paise only).

            Complainant, alongwith her husband by approaching OP, complained against this bill stating that since installation of this domestic connection there is no outstanding against her but officials of OP were not ready to listen the complainant. A representation, alongwith GPA, were also made to the OP, stating that she is not liable to pay the arrears of any stranger but all in vain.

            Pleading deficiency in service, on the part of OP, complainant has prayed for grant of directions, to the OP to issue correct bill in the name of complainant after cancelling the disputed bill and for restraining the OP from disconnecting electricity and removal the meter from complainant’s premises. Complainant has also prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of  Rs. 5,000/-.

2.        OP, by filing its reply raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of this complaint, before this forum, on the ground that as per order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Vs. Anees Ahmad jurisdiction of consumer forum is barred in cases of theft. 

3.        On merits OP states that on 4.7.2012 when officials of the OP inspected the premises of complainant they found that the supply in the disconnected connection bearing a CA No. 101251472 in the name of Mohd. ilyas was being extended, stealthily, from connections of complainant as well as from other four connections. As there were dues on the disconnected connection, complainant was given notices on 21.9.2012 and 5.10.2012 thereby asking to deposit outstanding dues, otherwise face legal action for unauthorized use / illegal extension of electricity which despite service complainant did not reply.  Accordingly, after following due process of law, outstanding dues of Rs. 1,60,059/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Thousand and Fifty Nine Only) were transferred in equal ratio on the complainant and other four connections. Share of each person was Rs. 32,011.80/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Eleven Rupees and Eighty Paise Only). The transfer of dues is legal and duly payable by the complainant in addition to payments for regular consumption of electricity.

The dues are on the same premises which OP is authorized to recover from the complainant as per undertaking, given by her while applying for new connection, to clear all accumulated / outstanding dues on the premises. Pleading complainant has no merit in the case, and as such she is not entitled for the relief sought, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

5.        By filing rejoinder complainant states that since grant of the connection in question from 17.02.2007 complainant has been paying all the bills on regular basis without any dispute with the OP till January 2014. All of a sudden in the bill issue by OP for the period 20.01.2014 to 25.02.2014 there is an arbitrary addition of Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) under the head “arrears since March 2013 Plus Rs. 4888/- as LPSC, under the grab of transfer of part of total outstanding amount of Rs. 160059/- of disconnected CA No. 101251472 where was allegedly disconnected on 14.12.2006. No outstanding of such dues were ever informed by OP on grant of electricity in February 2007 to the complainant. Nor the details of the same have been filed by OP before this forum thus concealing material facts and documents from this forum which are very crucial for just and fair adjudication of the present complaint. Complainant has also taken refuge of Section 56 (2) of Indian Electricity Act as well as DERC Regulations whereby two years limitation is provided for recovery of the dues from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity supply.      

6.        In the present case OP allowed said defaulter to use electricity for longer period without any payment until the amount accumulated to Rs. 1,60,059/- while it should have disconnected the supply within months together for non- payment. This is an unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of OP itself. As per settled law no party can be allowed to take advantage of his own acts and omissions. In the present case after connection on 17.02.2007 till January 2014 there was no dispute. Inspection report dated 4.7.2012 has no evidentiary value being merely a self created document. Regarding notices complainant states that the same were never served on him. OP has placed no record in proof whereof. Complainant has nothing to do with the outstanding dues of any third person whose connection was disconnected on 14.12.2006 much prior to the grant of connection to the complainant in February 2007. Complainant never undertook to clear any outstanding on the premises. Reiterating all the contents of the complaint complainant has prayed for grant of complaint.          

7.        Both the parties filed their sworn affidavits of evidence.

8.      Heard and perused the record.

9.      Going through the record we find that there is no dispute about the payment of bills issued by OP against consumption of electricity qua CA No. 101194241 in the name of the complainant. Only dispute is with respect to the payment of outstanding dues of another CA vide No. 101251472, in the name of one Mohd ilyas, which has since been disconnected on 14.12.2006. OP says that complainant I liable to pay the outstanding dues of this disconnected connection for the reason that the premises of the complainant as well as of the defaulter are same, for which she had already given undertaking while applying for new connection in the year 2006.

10.    Another plea taken by OP is that while inspecting on 4.7.2012, officials of OP found that the supply of disconnected connection had been extended stealthily from the connection of, complainant and four others. Therefore, all the outstandings of disconnected connection were transferred on these five connections in equal ratio.

Complainant disputes the transfer of this outstanding on the ground that premises of the two connections are different and not the same. Besides, she has also not given any such alleged undertaking to pay the past dues on the premises. Now, we have to determine first as to whether the two connections pertains to the same premises or not? If yes, as to whether there was any alleged undertaking by the complainant to pay the past dues or not? If yes, as to whether undertaking gives a right to OP to recover the past dues from the complainant or not? In this regard we find no document, filed by the OP, on record showing number of premises where the disconnected connection was installed while in pleading OP says that it was on the land in Khasra No. 31 of that area. However, as per power of attorney in favour of complainant placed on record, we find that complainant’s premises comes under Khasra No. 31. As argued by counsel for complainant a number of premises fall in the land under Khasra No. 31, consisting of so many lanes. Thus, either all the municipal numbers in all the lanes falling in Khasra No. 31 are liable to pay the outstanding or only the person occupying that particular municipal number is liable to pay outstanding. Thus, even if both the premises fall under Khasra No. 31 we find no force in OP’s plea that on basis only both can be said one and the same premises. It is only if municipal numbers are same that we can say both the premises as same. After this finding it shall be a futile exercise to go into the fact of giving or not giving undertaking by complainant or rights of OP to transfer the dues on the complainant. Similarly, we also find it unworthy to go into the point of limitation or otherwise as pleaded under section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, for the reason that OP has failed to prove it’s right to recover the alleged outstanding from the complainant. Even otherwise we find no document to show that OP ever apprised the complainant about this outstanding in the year 2006 when she applied for new connection or in 2007 when the new connection was energized. Similarly, we find no document on behalf of OP showing any demand from it to the complainant even till the bill for a period from 15.05.2012 to 17.07.2012 was issued on this premises of the complainant. It is only vide bill issued for a period from 14.09.2012 to 17.11.2012 that there was a demand of any outstanding first time.

11.    With respect to OP’s plea of bar or jurisdiction of this forum, OP has failed to place of record any valid document in support of its allegation of theft. Alleged inspection report nowhere mentioned that the theft was being committed by complainant. Rather, it seems a document of transfer of alleged outstanding dues. That too, is not signed by complainant or any independent witness but by the officials of OP only. We also find no document of any FIR against this theft. Thus, this inspection report can’t be relied upon. Hence, OP being unable to prove theft Ruling of UP Power corporation case (supra) is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, this forum is very much within its jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

12.    With respect to notices allegedly sent by OP to the complainant, perusal of copy of notice and dak register placed on record by the OP, show that the same were sent to the complainant. Though, there is no track report of the post office to prove that the same is delivered to the complainant. But approaching to the OP by the complainant in the year 2012 itself give rise to the presumption that the notices were served on the complainant. However, service of these notices looses its effect the very moment OP fails to establish that complainant is in any manner whatsoever, liable to pay these transferred outstanding dues.

13.    On the basis of above said findings in our considered view there being no liability of complainant to pay the outstanding dues of a stranger vide C.A. No. 101251472 of the year 2006, all the bills issued by OP   against C.A. No 101194241 of the complainant, demanding this outstanding as other charges   and LPSC, are illegal and invalid. Thus, for issuing whereof we hold OP guilty for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

          Therefore, declaring all these bills as null and void we direct the OP to issue a revised bill, showing only charges only of actual consumption, after deleting all these other charges in the garb of outstanding and LPSC. Revised bill shall also have no LPSC as the delay in the payment of charges for actual consumption is only due to illegal demand of OP without any fault of complainant.

          We also direct OP to pay to complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation; and litigation cost of Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand five hundred only)      

14.    This order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days from the receipt hereof.

15.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

16.      File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  21.07.2017)    

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member