BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 531 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.09.2019
Date of Decision : 25.02.2022.
Nirmla, aged 65 years, wife of Shri Raja Ram, resident of Near Govt. High School, Chattargarh Patti, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director at Hisar, District Sirsa.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Industrial Area Sub Division, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant applied for a new domestic electric connection in the office of op no.2 and her application was registered vide No. T11-419/64 dated 11.4.2019. On 15.4.2019, a sum of Rs.2900/- was got deposited by op no.2 from the complainant vide receipt No. 524372 and op no.2 assured that connection will be released to her very shortly. That complainant visited several times to op no.2 and inquired about the fate of her application but she was put off with one pretext or the other. Now the complainant has come to know that service connection order for release of electric connection has been issued by op no.2, but till date, same has not been released at the spot for the reasons best known to the ops. That due to non release of electric connection, complainant and her family members are facing unnecessary harassment and inconvenience as well as mental tension. The complainant has approached the ops many times and requested them to release the connection but the ops did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant. Ultimately, complainant got served a legal notice upon ops on 18.6.2019 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.
2. Ops were served and they filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding non maintainability, jurisdiction, no cause of action and locus standi, complainant is not a consumer of ops and estoppal. On merits, it is submitted that complainant applied for electric connection through online and also deposited a sum of Rs.2900/- as prescribed fee on account of expenses/ ACD/ security and required documents were also uploaded. Thereafter, during physical verification conducted by the officials of the Nigam, it was found that previously an electric connection bearing A/c No. SA48/0722 was released on the same premises on 4.7.2013 and same was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of Rs.17,951/- on 30.6.2016, which became Rs.17434/- after adjustment of ACD/ Security of said connection. Thus, the application for new connection filed by complainant was cancelled as per Sale Circular No. D-95/2001 Clause- B and after cancelling her application due to above said reason, amount deposited by her was immediately refunded/ returned to the complainant. It is further submitted that as per clause (b) of sale circular No.3-95 of 2001, the complainant can get new electric connection after paying the defaulting amount and even after completion of all formalities and complainant was also informed about the aforesaid rules of the Nigam, but she failed to pay the same till date and thus, she is not entitled to get new electric connection. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
4. Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Pushpinder Kumar, SDO Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that complainant applied for a new domestic electric connection with op no.2 and on 15.4.2019 op no.2 got deposited requisite security amount of Rs.2900/- from the complainant and she was assured by the ops that connection will be released to her very soon. Thereafter, complainant visited several times to op no.2 to inquire about the status/ fate of her application but every time, the ops made lame excuses for not releasing connection to her. Even despite issuance of service connection order, the ops have failed to release the connection at the spot for the reasons best known to the ops and due to the act and conduct of ops, complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, inconvenience and mental tension. He has further contended that complainant cannot be forced to pay arrears amount of any other person/ previous owner of the premises in order to get new electric connection and therefore, cancellation of her application on the ground of non payment of pending amount is wrong, illegal against the principles of natural justice. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another vs. Daulat Ram and another, 2016 (3) PLR 656, and decision of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Delhi Vidyut Board vs. Kewal Kishore Arora, IV (2004) CPJ 604 and also decision of Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Haryana State Electricity Board of Ambala Cantt. Versus Vidyawanti, FA No. 103 of 1993 decided on 2.4.1993 and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops contended that application of complainant was rightly rejected as per clause B of Sale Circular No. D-95/2001 and complainant can get the new electric connection after paying the defaulting amount and completion of all formalities which fact was also to her by she has failed to deposit the defaulting amount and as such complaint deserves dismissal.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
9. The record reveals that complainant in order to get new electric connection for her premises from the ops applied for the same to the ops through online vide her application dated 11.4.2019 and got deposited an amount of Rs.2900/- as security amount with the ops which fact is evident from the document placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1. But new electric connection was not released to the complainant by the ops on the ground that previously an electric connection bearing A/c No. SA48/0722 was released to the same premises on 4.7.2013 and same was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of Rs.17,951/- on 30.6.2016 and after adjustment of ACD/ Security of said connection, the net payable amount comes to Rs.17,434/-. In this regard, ops have pleaded that application of complainant was cancelled as per Clause B of Sale Circular No. D-95/2001. Though, ops in their written statement have not disclosed the name of the person/ previous consumer of ops who did not pay the outstanding energy charges but from the perusal of bill dated 30.6.2016 Ex.R1 reveals that said bill was issued for an amount of Rs.17,676/- in the name of Rameshwar/ Mangla Ram previous occupier of the premises in question. Then in the document i.e. Master Data relating to the consumer Ex.R7 also, arrears amount of Rs.18,193/- has been shown pending against said previous occupier of the premises namely Rameshwar/ Mangla Ram of Jangra Property Dealer, Sirsa. The ops have tried to justify their stand while relying upon Clause B of their own sale circular No. D-95/2001 which is reproduced as under:-
(B) Reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Nigam unless these are cleared in advance. If the new owner/ occupier/ allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Nigam shall provides reconnection or new connection depending upon whether the service remains disconnected/ dismantled as the case may be. The amount so remitted will be adjusted against the dues from the previous consumer. If the Nigam gets the full or partial dues from the previous consumer through legal proceedings or otherwise, the amount remitted by the new owner/ occupier to whom the connection has been effected shall be refunded to that extent. But the amount already remitted by him/ her shall not bear any interest.
10. Admittedly, the arrears of previous connection/ defaulting amount pertains to previous owner/ occupier namely Rameshwar/ Mangla Ram and said previous connection was permanently disconnected on 30.6.2016 for non payment of energy charges/ arrears, whereas complainant after purchasing the house in question from its previous owner namely Smt. Sugandha wife of Sandeep through registered sale deed dated 29.1.2019 (copy of which is on file as Ex.C4) applied for new connection in the same premises on 11.4.2019. The ops have failed to prove on record that they ever initiated legal proceeding for the recovery of the amount from the previous occupier of the premises in question and the previous arrears were due for more than two years. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as UHBVN Vs. Daulat Ram (supra has held as under:-
“Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100 Specific Relief Actg, 1963 Sections 37 and 38 Notice for Recovery of arrears of charges sought by appellant/ defendants/ Corporation- Suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent/ plaintiff/ subsequent purchaser of land decreed- Sustainability of – Regular second appeal- Held, no evidence led to effect that any bills were being issued to previous owner even after said firm ceased to exist, especially when electricity connection sanctioned to that firm admittedly been cut off- Further, appellant/ Corporation failed to show at any stage, any statutory provision by which allottee of new connection can be held liable to discharge liability foisted on owner of previous connection, even on same premises- Hence, regular second appeal dismissed. The Hon’ble High Court also observed that “Other than that, the learned Civil Judge further held that in terms of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, no sum due from any consumer, was recoverable after a period of two years from the date on which such sum first became due, unless it could be shown that the said sum was being continuously shown to be recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supply, where the supply had not been cut off.
11. The above said authority is also fully applicable in this case because firstly, the ops have failed to prove on record that ever initiated legal proceeding for the recovery of the amount from the previous occupier of the premises in question and secondly the previous arrears were due for more than two years and therefore, as per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the ops cannot recover any amount after a period of two years from the date on which such sum first became due. Further more, no liability of the previous occupier of the premises can be imposed upon the complainant. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s. Esha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another, JT 1995 (2) SC 626 has held that “ there can be no charge over property and the electricity authority cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability of the original defaulter against the third party who was a purchaser and sought reconnection. It was held that it was impossible to impose on purchaser a liability, which was not incurred by him, and law is inadequate to enforce the liability of the previous contracting party against the prospective purchaser.”
12. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as DHBVNL Versus Dr. G.N. Verma, FA No. 804 of 2007 decided on 17.2.2011 has held as under:-
“As per the case of the complainant a penalty of Rs.12914/- was illegally demanded by the appellants from the complainant vide memo dt. 13.3.2006. As per the case of appellants, an amount of Rs.12941/- was due towards the previous owner of the premises in question which was later on purchased by the present complainant and he is liable to pay the same as per sales circular of the Nigam. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that as per admission of Nigam, the aforesaid amount had not been recovered from the previous owner within time nor initiated legal proceeding for the recovery of the amount and now at this stage, the ops transferred the said amount in the account of the complainant. The sale circular No. D-95/2001 vide which the amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant issued in the year of 2001 but the Indian Electricity Act amended in the year of 2003. So, the said circular has not binding upon the complainant. In addition to this, the complainant has no contract or agreement with the opposite parties to pay the defaulted amount of previous owner of the premises in question.”
13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops also relied upon clause (b) of Section 9 of Haryana Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1970 (Haryana Act No. 29 of 1970) which is regarding extension of period of limitation and same is reproduced is as under:-
“For the recovery of any amount accruing after the date of first constitution of the Board, shall be, and shall always be deemed to have been, six years from the time from which the period of limitation began or would begin to run under the said Act against a like suit by a private person”.
14. The above said clause of Haryana Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1970 is not applicable in this case because recovery dues and recovery act of the Government are only against the defaulting party whereas in the present case complainant is not a defaulting party. In view of the above said law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Esha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another (supra) no recovery of defaulting amount can be effected from the subsequent purchaser of premises. So, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and also by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, the ops cannot raise demand of previous arrears of previous occupier of the premises from the subsequent purchaser of the premises i.e. complainant. The ops have wrongly and illegally rejected the application of the complainant for getting new electric connection in her purchased house in 2019. In view of the above said decisions, the Sales Circular No. D-95/2001 is not helpful to the ops and ops have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant.
15. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and ops are directed to release electric connection to the complainant after obtaining requisite and latest amount of security and ops are also liable to pay composite compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses. The complainant shall complete the formalities for obtaining electric connection within a period of 15 days and ops are directed to comply with the order within further period of one month thereafter. In case, ops fail to comply the order, further action under Section 71/72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall be initiated against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 25.02.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
