Haryana

StateCommission

A/185/2017

PREM CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.NARANG

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                First Appeal No.           :         185 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution        :         17.02.2017

                                                Date of Decision                   :         12.07.2017

 

 

Prem Chand S/o Sh. Prem Raj, R/o Vill. Panhera Khurd, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad. SPA Holder of Smt. Veena W/o Prem Chand.

 

 

          …… Appellant.

 

Versus

 

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., though X.En. (OP) division, Sector-23, Faridabad.
2. SDO (OP), Sub, Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Chhainsa (Faridabad), Ballabgarh.
3. Gaya Lal S/o Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o Village Panhera Khurd, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad.

 

 

……. Respondents.

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. R.K. Narang, counsel for the appellant/complainant.

                             Mr. Man Singh, C.A. representative of respondent No. 1                                       and 2.

                             Mr. Gaya Lal, respondent No. 3 in person.

 

O R D E R

 

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 444 dated 03.03.2017 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases individually in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by appellant/complainant against the respondent/OP has been dismissed.  It is was observed by the Learned District Forum as under:-                     

          “The complainant, Prem Chand is the son of Prem Raj in whose name electricity A/c No. PD-11/0107 existed and this connection was later disconnected due to non-payment of dues.  As per the statement of respondent No. 3, the complainant Prem Chand is the only legal heir of late Shri Prem Raj and resides in the same premises as his father did.  The complainant has not mentioned this fact in his complaint, and once brought on record by respondent No. 3, there has been no rebuttal from his side.  Hence, this information is admitted to be true.  His wife Smt. Veena in whose name electricity A/c No. PD-14/0935 was installed also lives in the same premises.  If the son and his family can inherit father’s property and enjoy it, they will also have to bear the burden of his debts.  Smt. Veena is also enjoying the property of her father-in-law and is thus liable to pay the pending electricity bills of her father-in-law in all respects.  Smt. Veena will pay the amount in question to respondents Nos. 1 and 2.  The complaint is hereby dismissed with direction to the complainant to pay the amount in question to respondents No. 1 and 2.”

                             There is delay of 306 days in filing of the present appeal and the condonation of which has been sought by moving an application for condonation of delay.  The application is accompanied with an affidavit of Prem Chand.

                             With dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be ignored that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity but at the same time it can be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order, which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law.

                             The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such a controversy has held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other the former has to be preferred.  It has further been held that the words “sufficient cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice.  Reliance may be placed to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752, as under:-

“11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules.  In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shanti Misra (1975) (2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law.  The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction.  In Brij Inder Singh Versus Kanshi Ram (ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.  In Shakuntala Devi Jain Versus Kuntal Kumari (AIR1969 SC 575) a Bench of three- Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

                             The facts of the present case are fully attracted to the case law cited supra. 

                             The order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the District Forum Faridabad appears to be drawn against the principle of natural justice, therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case delay of 306 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.

                             In brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s wife Smt. Veena has an electricity meter installed in the house in her name, bearing domestic connection No. PD-14/0935.  The complainant has filed the complaint on her behalf since she is illiterate.  The complainant received a wrong Electricity Bill with liabilities to the tune of Rs. 1,08,773/- for the month of February, 2010.  The complainant has alleged that it was done intentionally by respondents No. 1 & 2 in collusion with respondent No. 3.  This amount relates to unpaid bills of A/c No. OD-12/709 in the name of Gaya Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop.  This amount was first raised against Gaya Lal, Consumer A/c No. PD-12/709 and he requested/directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer this amount to the complainants A/C No. PD-14/0935 and raise a demand accordingly.  The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have done this, which is illegal and intentional.  The complainant has prayed for directions to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to :

1.           Rectify the bill of A/C No. PD14/0935 and transfer the amount          in question to A/C No. PD12/0709 in the name of Shri Gaya Lal.
2.           Issue a fresh bill on the basis of actual consumed units for      February, 2010.
3.           Pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment etc.

 

                             Upon notice respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted that the father of the complainant Shri Prem Raj S/o Shri Bhulli was having an electric connection A/c No. PD 11/0107 in the premises and there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 93,322/- as default payment, which was never paid.  So the said meter was permanently disconnected on 15.07.2006 by answering respondents.  The amount was inadvertently transferred to A/C No. PD-12/709 which is in the name of Gaya Lal.  Shri Gaya Lal brought this error to the notice of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and also apprised them of the new meter A/C No. PD14/0935 in the name of Smt. Veena in the same premises as old A/C No. PD11/0107.  After verifying the details and being the same premises, the defaulting amount of Rs. 93,322/- against A/C No. PD11/0107 was transferred to A/C No. PD 14/0935 in the name of the complainant’s wife Mrs. Veena.

                             Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant and observations as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             I have heard the learned counsel representative the appellant/complainant while assaulting the order of the District Forum contented that if overlooked the factual position of the case, the amount demand has been made after the expiry of period of 4 years and same is time barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant/complainant further contended that recovery amount was transferred to the account No. PD12-709 which was in the name of Gaya Lal in 05.07.2007 and after that the amount transferred to the account No. PD 14/0935 in the name of the complainant wife Mrs. Veena. 

 

On the other hand learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2 had contended that the father of the complainant Shri Prem Raj S/o Shri Bhulli was having an electric connection A/c No. PD 11/0107 in the premises and there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 93,322/- as default payment, which was never paid.  So the said meter was permanently disconnected on 15.07.2006 by answering respondents.  The amount was inadvertently transferred to A/C No. PD-12/709 which is in the name of Gaya Lal.  Shri Gaya Lal brought this error to the notice of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and also apprised them of the new meter A/C No. PD14/0935 in the name of Smt. Veena in the same premises as old A/C No. PD11/107.  After verifying the details and being the same premises, the defaulting amount of Rs. 93,322/- against A/C No. PD11/0107 was transferred to A/C No. PD 14/0935 in the name of the complainant’s wife Mrs. Veena.

                                       On the other hand, the respondent No.3/OP contended that Prem Chand is the son of Prem Raj in whose name electricity A/C No. 11/0107 existed and this connection was later disconnected due to non-payment of dues.  As per the statement of respondent No. 3, the complainant Prem Chand is the only legal heir of late Shri Prem Raj and resides in the same premises as his father did.  The complainant has not mentioned this fact in his complaint, and once brought on record by respondent No. 3, there has been no rebuttal from his side.  Hence, this information is admitted to be true.  His wife Smt. Veena in whose name electricity A/C No. PD14/0935 was installed also lives in the same premises.  If the son and his family can inherit father’s property and enjoy it, they will also have to bear the burden of his debts.  Smt. Veena is also enjoying the property of her father in law and is thus liable to pay the pending electricity bills of her father-in-law in all respects.  Smt. Veena will pay the amount in question to respondents Nos.1 and 2.

                             I have considered the respective submission of the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties. The appellant/complainant is the son of Prem Raj and electricity connection is in the name of Veena W/o Prem Chand and previous connection No. PD 11/0107 was in the name of Prem Raj, which was disconnected by the opposite parties and the disputed amount was pending in the account of connection No. PD-11/0107 on 15.07.2006.  The electricity connection No. PD11/0107 was disconnected.  The disputed amount was transferred in the account of Gaya Lal No. OD-12/709 on 05.07.2007 after that disputed amount was transferred in the account of appellant/complainant in the month of Feb., 2010 which has been transferred after the expiry of 4 years. The finding of the District Forum to be faulted because Section 56 (2) of the Act, 2003 expressly provides that 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. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has referred case law titled as Dakshi Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr. Versus Rajji Bai (2008) 4 CPJ 563 of the wherein Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that:-

“Sector 56 of the Act, 2003 expressly provides that 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.”

 

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to the case law cited above.

The District Consumer Forum wrongly dismissed complaint of the complainant and given wrong direction to recover the amount from the complainant.

                             In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record and as such the impugned order under challenge passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Hence this appeal is accepted with directions to the opposite parties:-

1. Not to recover disputed/demanding amount from the appellant/complainant.
2. To pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to appellant/complainant.
3. Not to claim any interest or any charge on the disputed/demanding amount and issue a fresh bill to appellant/complainant.

                             Hence this appeal is accepted and complaint of the complainant is allowed.  The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside. Let order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  It is ordered accordingly.

                                                         

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

12.07.2017                                                                                       Presiding Member

                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-IInd  

 

G.C.