DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.307/13
Mrs. Shiv Rani Gupta
W/o Ashwani Kumar Gupta
R/o Ho. No. 31 S/F
Gautam Nagar
New Delhi-110049. .…Complainant
VERSUS
BSES Bhawan
Nehru Place
New Delhi-110019.
Also At:
Adchini Grid Building
Aurbindo Marg
New Delhi-11007.
Also At
Mr. Sharad Pandey, Business Manager
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
11, KVS/STN BLDG, A-1/27
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution: 21.05.2013
Date of Order : 20.10.2022
Member: Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put Complainant, Smt. Shiv Rani Gupta, had a domestic service Electricity connection vide CA No. 102430800 and CRN No. 2551145603 installed in her house since 2008.
2. It is stated that Complainant is regular with paying her electricity bills on time. The complainant paid her last electricity bill dated 18.01.2013 for the billing period of Feb. 2013 which was Rs.1053.63. Photocopy of the bill is annexed as Annexure-1. Complainant was shocked to receive a notice dated 27.4.2013 from OP under section 56(1) of Electricity Act. As per the notice, complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,030/- towards outstanding dues within 15 days from receiving of the notice or latest by 15.05.2013, failing which OP would disconnect the electricity supply to the above said premises. Photocopy of the said notice is annexed as annexure-2. It is stated that she visited OP’s office many times to get the bill corrected but no positive response was given by OP.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on account of arbitrary and incorrect bill, complainant prayed for the following:-
- Direct the Opposite Party to stay the disconnection of supply of electricity till final disposal of complaint.
- Director the Opposite Parties to show the previous record or account in support of said notice towards its correctness.
- If the OP fails to do so the Hon’ble Forum must impose a heavy compensation thereby the OP could not go ahead towards doing same mistake.
- Order the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members.
- Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of this litigation charges.
4. OP resisted the complaint stating interalia that dues against the meter sanctioned in the name of Shri Ashwani Gupta , husband of the complainant has been transferred upon the complainant’s electricity connection. The said electricity connection sanctioned in the name of Shri Ashwani Gupta, having its CRN No.2550049710 was removed on 04.03.2006; and at the time of the meter removal the final reading of the meter was 24,797. Therefore, dues/arrears occurred against the said connection was Rs.1,39,722/-.It is stated that the above said dues of the husband of the complainant has been transferred to the meter sanctioned in the name of the complainant alongwith the current demand vide notice dated 27.04.2014 for Rs.1,41,030/- issued under section 56 of the Electricity Act.
5. It is next stated by OP that the complainant had taken an undertaking/declaration which reads as follows:-
“That the applicant undertakes to clear all accumulated/outstanding dues against the premises and the licensee is authorized to recover the same from the applicant or transfer the dues to any existing electricity connection sanctioned in favour of applicant”.
6. In light of the facts and circumstances it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs or the cost of litigation be awarded to OP.
7. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit is filed on behalf of parties, written arguments are filed by the OP. Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard.
8. Having perused the material placed before us it is noticed that the dispute before us is regarding a domestic tariff of a private building, the address of which is- House No.31 S/F Gautam Nagar, Delhi. It is seen that at the said address, a meter by the name of Ashwani Gupta had been installed which was removed on 04.03.2006. A new meter was installed on 07.01.2009 on the same address but this time it was in the name of Smt. Shiv Rani Gupta wife of the previous consumer. We are of the opinion that merely by changing the name of the consumer Complainant cannot be absolved from paying the arrears as it is not the case of the complainant that she and her husband were not residing in the same premises. OP was well within its rights to issue a dues transfer certificate and recover the charges for the electricity consumed.
9. Complainant’s grievance that though she had been regularly paying the electricity bill since 2009, it is in 2013 that certain dues have been transferred to her bill by OP, which is arbitrary and illegal. Complainant’s argument that the sum has been transferred to her account after a period of about four years which is beyond the limitation period, therefore OP is barred from collecting the same from the complainant.
10. In this regard, reference is made to Assistant Engineer (DI) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam ltd. and Another Vs. Rahamatullah Khan decided on Feb. 2018by H’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held-
“Section 8. Section 56(2), however, does not preclude the licenseee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired, nor does it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee company for recovery of supplementary demand.”
11. Thus, in light of the ratio above OP is well within its rights to raise supplementary demand after expiry of the limitation period of two years.
12. In view of the discussion above complaint stands dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room and the order be uploaded on the website.
