BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No.320 of 2015.
Date of Instt.: 27.11.2015.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2017.
Sham Lal aged 45 years son of Kishan Chan son of Mangha Ram r/o H.No.91, Jagjiwanpura, Basti Bhiwan, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director, Vidyut Sadan, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Operation, Dashing Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation, Sub-Divisional, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of CP Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Raman Kumar Sardana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Parveen K.Jora, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
1. The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased an area measuring 5 marla vide sale deed No.15 dated 03.04.2002 from one Sh.Satpal and the electricity connection was in the name of previous owner but the purchased area was free from all kinds of encumbrances. It has been further averred that after the purchase of plot/house he has been making the payment of electricity bills regularly and nothing is due towards him. The OPs had issued a bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,77,409/- payable on 11.05.2015 by showing an amount of Rs.374549/- as arrears, which is wrong, against law and facts, without giving any notice and without providing any detail to him but the Ops are bent upon to recover the same from the complainant despite the fact that it was told to him that the amount of arrears would be recovered from the previous owner because the matter has been settled in the court and after payment of the amount of arrears the meter would be transferred in his name. It has been further averred that as and when the complainant made a request to transfer the meter in his name then the OPs lingered on the matter, therefore, the complainant had to file an application under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalat. On 30.09.2015 during proceedings before PLA Sh.Budh Ram, CA had appeared on behalf of OPs (respondents in that application) and made a statement that the OPs had overhauled the account by deducting an amount of Rs.2,43,286/- from Rs.3,77,409/- (billed amount) vide sundry item No.63/97 dated 29.07.2015, therefore, net amount of Rs.1,61,568/- was to be paid by the petitioner but said overhauling had been done without giving any information and the statement made by CA was erroneous and afterthought. Said application was disposed of by PLA by according permission to file a fresh petition/civil suit. It has been further averred that thereafter a casual exercise of overhauling was done by the OPs and a bill payable on 23.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,73,944/- was issued to the complainant without providing any details and now the OPs are bent upon to recover the same from him despite the fact that the amount was to be recovered from previous owner. The complainant had moved an application to the OPs and also requested to correct the electricity bill but all fell on deaf ears. It has been further averred that the OPs are bent upon to recover the said amount and flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant despite the fact that the amount was outstanding against the previous owner and the said bill was issued by violating the provisions of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C29.
3. The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant by taking several preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal, maintainability and suppression of material facts from this Forum. It has been further submitted that the electricity bill which was payable on 11.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,77,409/- whereby an amount of Rs.3,74,549/- was shown as arrears/outstanding dues was correct because the complainant had not made the payment of electricity bills prior to 2004. At the time of issuance of bill payable on 11.09.2015 an amount of Rs.2,43,286/- had been refunded vide sundry item No.63/97 dated 29.07.2015, therefore, a bill for an amount of Rs.1,79,756/- was issued to the complainant as per rules which the complainant is bound to pay. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other pleas raised in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.Gulashan Wadhwa, SDO as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R41.
4. Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the of the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the house in question from one Satpal and the amount mentioned in bill under challenge is related to him and the same cannot be recovered from the complainant. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on case law titled as Abhisar Developers Vs. Torrent Powers Limited 2011 (A(R (Gujrat) 1 wherein Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has held that Transfer of premises- Electricity dues of transferor of property-Transferee of the premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous occupier- Such dues are against the consumer and not against the property and the electricity arrears does not constitute a charge over the property and a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as per Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act the Ops cannot recover the amount mentioned in the bill being related to the year 2001. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance of case law titled as Sanjay Balvantrai Desai Vs. Dashing Gujrat Vij Company Limited 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 181 wherein Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has held that In a case where for a default committed by a consumer, electricity has been disconnected and no suit is filed for recovery of the amount within two years when the amount first became due, the said amount shall not be even legally recoverable at the instance of the licence. Learned counsel for the complainant has also drew the attention of this Forum towards the Sales Circular No.D-45/2013 in support of his arguments.
6. Firstly, this Forum takes up the matter qua maintainability of this complaint before this Forum and if this complaint finds maintainable before this Forum then the matter will be taken up on merits.
7. Arguments advanced by learned counsel of both the parties have been heard and record of the case has been perused minutely.
8. A perusal of sale deed dated 03.04.2002 (Annexure 26) reveals that an area/plot measuring 5 marlas has been purchased by the complainant Sh.Sham Lal from Sh.Sat Pal. There is no mention in the sale deed that any house or building was purchased by the complainant from Sh.Sat Pal in whose name the meter in issue has been installed. Therefore, it is not established that the house in which the meter in issue is installed was purchased by the complainant and in absence of the same it cannot be concluded that the complainant is user of the meter in dispute on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.04.2002. Moreover, if it is presumed that the premises in which the meter in dispute is installed was purchased by the complainant it was the responsibility of the complainant to submit an application for transfer of the meter in his name. However, there is nothing on record of the file that any application was submitted by the complainant for transfer of the said meter in his name or any intimation was given by the complainant to the OPs that the said premises has been purchased by him. A perusal of the record of the file and all the electricity bills issued by the OPs reveals that till date the meter in dispute is in the name of Sh.Sat Pal. All the electricity consumption bills have been paid on behalf of Sh.Sat Pal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Hari Prasad Vs. MU,HBVNL Panchkula & Others 2010 (2) CLT Page 558 and judgment of Hon’ble State Commission of Chhattisgarh titled as Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Goverdhan Prasad Dhurandhar Appeal No.455 of 2008 decided on 30th January, 2009 page No.115. As per discussions made above, the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, the case laws and instructions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable in the present case.
9. It is admitted fact that earlier the complainant had approached to Permanent Lok Adalat by filing a petition under Section 22-C of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. During the proceedings of that petition/application on 30.09.2015 Sh.Budh Ram, CA City Sub Division, DHBVN Fatehabad had made his statement which is as under:
“The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the correctness of bill dated 23.04.2015 whereby he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.3,77,409/- on account of electricity charges. In this amount, some amount was due towards the previous owner of the premises. The respondents have overhauled the account of the petitioner and have deducted a sum of Rs.2,43,286/- vide sundry item No.63/97 dated 29.07.2015 out of the aforesaid disputed amount. Therefore, a net amount of Rs.1,61,568/- as on today is balance towards the petitioner, which is to be paid by him. If this proposal is acceptable to the petitioner, the petition may be disposed of accordingly”
Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner Sh.Raman Sardana had also made his statement which is as follows:
“I have gone through the statement of Sh.Budh Ram, CA. He has stated about the overhauling of the account of the petitioner. But the respondents never informed the petitioner about the overhauling the account rather they insisted for the payment of the amount of the impugned bill. If they have settled the account and have adjusted some amount, the petitioner will go through the record, will get the copies of the overhauled account and then if he would not be satisfied, then he shall file a fresh petition challenging the overhauling of the account. The statement of CA made today before the Adalat appears to be erroneous and afterthought. Therefore, in view of his statement, I hereby withdraw the present petition with permission to file the fresh, if needed.”
Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat had disposed of the said petition vide order dated 30.09.2015 which runs as under:
“Sh.Budh Ram, CA made statement. Thereafter Sh.Raman Sardana, Advocate for the petitioner has made statement leading to the withdrawal of the petition. In view of his statement, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition/civil suit, if he so desires. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.”
Had there been any controversy or the complainant was not agreed with the action of the Ops, then it was for him to approach Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat where both the parties had made their statement which was the base of dismissing the said petition as withdrawn. Though the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat had vide order dated 30.90.2015 had also given liberty to the complainant to file fresh petition/civil suit, if he so desires.
10. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, therefore, same is being disposed of. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate channel and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is also granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC page 583. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.27.03.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
