Case No.175 /2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Rajveer Singh S/o Late Nihal Singh age about 65 years R/o Village Rafipur Siya District Aligarh  

                                           V/s

1. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-III Lal Diggi Aligarh
2. Ram Nath Singh S/o Late Nihal Singh age about 65 years R/o Village Rafipur Siya District Aligarh 

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for following reliefs:-

1. Op be directed to reconnect the connection of PTW of the complainant with the mutation of the complainant’s name in place of his father’s name Late Nihal Singh.
2.  Op be directed to refund/ adjust the excess amount paid by him in electricity dues
3. Op be directed to pay Rs 20000 for litigation expenses.

2. Complainant has stated that he and Ram Nath Singh Op no.2 are the sons of Late Nihal Singh. They cultivate their land and tube well was installed for irrigating the crop. Complainant’s brother Ram Nath Singh OP no.2 has no objection in filing the complainant who has been impleaded as a Proforma party. Late Nihal Singh was sanctioned a tube well connection no. 781711743143 of 7.5 HP load. Complainant has been making payment of electricity bills after the death of the father and the complainant is a beneficiary as a legal heir of the connection holder. He is the consumer and op is the service provider. The complainant had paid the electricity dues Rs.26230 on 12.3.2021 under the OTS scheme. The connection was disconnected on 5.8.2021 on the ground of nonpayment of dues of only four months. Complainant approached the  office of the OP to reconnected the connection and the office demanded Rs.131513. He was granted rebate of surcharge Rs.58720 and the balance amount Rs.72793 was paid on 30.6.2022. Op had accepted the amount Rs.72793 against the electricity dues and had no authority to permanently disconnect the connection on 5.8.2021 on the ground of electricity dues. The letter dated 20.5.2022 issued by the OP for termination of  the agreement is illegal and without jurisdiction. The agreement of the tube well connection survives  for all purposes. OP is estopped by the principle of promissory estoppel to deny the supply of the electricity. Complainant had paid  the electricity dues and he had to pay the  dues of only four months. He paid the amount Rs.72793 which was more than electricity dues of the said period.  The excess amount is liable to be refunded/ adjusted in the electricity bills. Complainant is entitled for reconnection with the mutation of his name in the record in place of his father’s name.                              
3. Op no.1 admitted in WS that the amount Rs.26230 and Rs.72793 were paid by the complainant. The connection was temporarily disconnected and there after op has the right of making permanent disconnection within six month. The connection cannot be energized  after permanent disconnection  in    compliance of clause 4.36(a) of the Code. The connection was temporarily disconnected on account of dues up to the month 8/2022 which was permanently disconnected in accordance with clause 4.37 and cannot be reconnected as per clause 4.39 (a) of the Code.                

4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has also filed affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the complainant and op’s counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Admittedly, Complainant was sanctioned a PTW connection no. 781711743143 of 7.5 HP Load and he had paid the electricity dues Rs.262230 on 12.3.2021 but his connection was disconnected on 5.8.2021 on account of non-payment of dues of only four months where as he was assured by the office of the Op not to disconnect the connection on payment of demand Rs.131513. Complainant paid the amount Rs.72793 on 30.6.2022 under the OTS scheme granting him a rebate of surcharge Rs.58720. It means the complainant had paid the electricity dues Rs.72793 in excess against the dues of four months and the op had no jurisdiction to disconnect the connection in default of payment of electricity dues and also in view of assurance given to him not to disconnect the connection on payment of the amount of demand. Despite of making  the promise not to disconnect the connection,  the connection was disconnected on 5.8.2021 whereas the op was under obligation not to disconnect the connection when the promise was made to him  not to disconnect the connection. OP was estopped from disconnect the connection under the promissory estoppel. Further, it is important to note that the complainant had paid the amount Rs.72793 on 30.6.2022 under the OTS Scheme and thus the complainant has removed the cause of disconnection by making payment of dues  and op was under obligation to reconnect the connection under clause 4.39(b) of the code 2005 keeping in view the promise made by the op not to disconnect the connection. Op has shown the temporary disconnection on 5.8.2021 and by its letter dated 20.5.2022 the connection was permanently disconnected with effect from 5.8.2021, the date on which connection was temporarily disconnected. The agreement was terminated by this letter dated 20.5.2022. As per clause 4.38(i) (b) if the cause on for which supply was temporarily disconnected is not removed within six month, the supply shall be disconnected permanently. It means the connection which was disconnected on 5.8.2021, could have been permanently disconnected by the date 20.5.2022 and not with effect from 5.8.2021. Moreover the letter for permanent disconnection was issued on 20.5.2022 whereby permanent disconnection was made effective from 5.8.2021. It shows that the op has not acted with clean hands and the act was melafide. In these circumstances it may be inferred that the op acted with some ulterior and the complainant had to suffer by the acts of the Op who adopted unfair method in disconnecting the connection of the complainant. under the circumstances it appears proper to hold the enquiry into the conduct of the officials involved in the matter. The OP acted against the provisions of law and the connection was temporarily disconnected with the permanent disconnection on same day 5.8.2021. Thus the connection was illegally disconnected and agreement was illegally terminated. The op had no jurisdiction or authority to terminate the agreement against the law and the agreement shall be deemed to be in force and the complainant is not required new connection as the old connection still survive in the eye of law. Under the circumstance complainant is entitled for mutation of his name in place of his father’s name in the record of connection with the refund / adjustment of the excess amount paid by the complainant. Complainant was granted interim relief under section 38(8) of the Act for reconnection of the connection and on payment of Rs.34373 complainant was sanctioned electricity connection which was energized as per statement made by the OP’s counsel in written argument dated 26.12.2023. Complainant has moved application to refund the excess amount except the amount  Rs.7000 against the electricity dues of four months with interest and he was compelled  to pay amount R.34373 and Rs.1000 total Rs.35373 for the  material used in releasing  the connection whereas op was required to use the material to be provided by the department. In this regard letter dated 6.3.2024 addressed to the OP by the AE of the store for refund of the material to the consumer/complainant which is shown on the portal under the full deposit scheme for private tube-well. It is clear that the material already stored under the scheme of full deposit made by the complainant could be used and the complainant was not required to pay Rs.34373+Rs.1000. He has also paid the amount Rs.72793 against the amount Rs.7000 for the four months bill. Thus complainant has paid Rs.72793 –Rs.7000+ Rs.34373+Rs.1000 total amount Rs.101166 in excess and is entitled to be repaid.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant accordingly.                    
9. We hereby direct the Op no.1 to pay Rs.101166 with pendente lite and future interest @ 7% per annum and litigation expenses Rs. 10000. Op no.1 is further directed to continue the connection released  and energized in compliance of order passed u/s 38(8) of the Act on 17.10.2023.
10.  Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the MD DVVNL, Agra for initiating enquiry against the concerned Executive Engineer and other officials involved in the Matter as observed in para no.7 of the judgment  and to inform the Court within two months. 
11. Op no.1 shall comply with the directions within 15 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.