1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate, for the respondents. 2. Aforementioned revision has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., dated 04.07.2014, passed in First Appeal No. 296 of 2002 (arising out of the order District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bijnor, dated 21.01.1998, passed in Consumer Complaint No.578 of 1993). By the impugned order the appeal has been allowed and the order of District Forum has been set aside. 3. The office has reported that the revision has been filed with delay of 92 days. The petitioners have filed I.A. No.542 of 2015, an application for condonation of delay. It has been stated that after receiving the copy of the impugned order, the counsel appearing for the petitioners instructed to collect the documents for filing the revision. The petitioners thereafter collected the documents and various documents were in Hindi and required to be translated in English. Therefore, the time has been taken in collecting the documents as well as its translation in English and delay has occurred in filing of the revision. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the revision is condoned. 4. Dharampal Singh (petitioner-1) filed Consumer Complaint No.578 of 1993 for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 of Rs.17139.90, relating to electricity charges. The complainant stated that he and his brothers had taken electricity Connection No.0624/7528, of 10 HP for running tube-well. They were regularly paying electricity charges. However, the officers of U.P. State Electricity Board, in a highhanded manner disconnected the electricity connection on 04.02.1985 and took away the connecting cables to up to the pole. When the complainant approached the Executive Engineer, he informed that there was dues of Rs.4225/- upon him. Although, there was no arrears of dues but Executive Engineer issued bill of Rs.4225/-, which was deposited by the complainant on 30.04.1991. In spite of deposit of the aforesaid amount, the opposite parties issued a Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 for Rs.17139.90 although electricity connection had already been disconnected on 04.02.1985 and the alleged arrears, prior to it, have been deposited on 30.04.1991. Issue of Recovery Certificate for Rs.17133.90 was illegal. After filing the complaint, the complainant deposited Rs.7945/- on 12.07.1993, under protest, in compliance of the order of District Forum dated 24.04.1993, which was passed as a condition for granting stay of the recovery proceeding. 5. The respondent filed their written reply on 17.07.1993 and contested the complaint. It has been stated that till March, 1987, Rs.16006.50 plus surcharge was due against the complainant and his brother, relating to aforesaid electricity connection. The complainant deposited Rs.4225/- on 30.04.1991, which was the dues of December, 1989 to April, 1991. Remaining amounts remained due. The complainant and his brother did not deposit the bills, in spite of sending bills/demands, therefore, Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 for Rs.17133.90, was issued. 6. Vikram Singh (petitioner-2) filed his Affidavit on 02.12.1993, in which, he had admitted that till March, 1993, Rs.7945/- was dues. During pendency of the complaint, fresh bill of Rs.5614.20 was issued on 29.09.1995. The complainant impleaded his other brothers also as the complainants in the complaint. The complainants took plea that surcharges were waived by the Government Order dated 13.05.1991. 7. District Forum, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 20.01.1998 held that the complainants produced report of B.D. Gupta, Junior Engineer and Lallu Singh, Lineman showing that Connection No.0624/7528 was disconnected on 04.02.1985 and cable wires were taken away as such the opposite parties could not charge any bill after disconnection. On these findings, the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were given liberty to realize Rs.50614/- from B.D. Gupta, Junior Engineer and Lallu Singh, Lineman in the ratio of 80:20 per cent. The opposite parties filed an application dated 04.03.1998, stating that as the complainants did not deposit entire amount of the dues and did not avail the benefit of Government Order dated 15.03.1991 relating to waiver of surcharges as such the amount of surcharge remained unpaid. In the year 1991, more than Rs.20000/- was in arrears. Out of which only Rs.4225/- was deposited on 30.04.1991 as such Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 was validly issued. District Forum rejected this application vide order dated 07.03.1998. 8. The respondents filed F.A. No.296 of 2002, from the aforesaid order. State Commission by judgment dated 04.07.2014, found the District Forum had illegally directed to realize Rs.50614/- from B.D. Gupta, Junior Engineer and Lallu Singh, Lineman in the ratio of 80:20 per cent, without any basis. On this findings, the appeal was allowed and the order of State Commission was set aside. Hence this revision has been filed by the complainants. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioners filed CC/578/1993 for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 of Rs.17139.90, relating to electricity charges, on the ground that the officers of U.P. State Electricity Board had disconnected their electricity connection on 04.02.1985 and took away the connecting cables to up to the pole and thereafter they issued bill of Rs.4225/-, which was paid on 30.04.1991. Therefore issue of Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 was illegal. When the respondents took plea that the surcharges remained unpaid, the petitioners relied upon Government Order dated 15.03.1991, by which the surcharges were waived up to 30.11.1989. But State Commission has not adverted to the controversy involved in the complainant nor passed any order in respect of the complaint. 10. In order to prove permanent disconnection, the petitioners produced Certificate of Disconnection dated 04.02.1985, issued by B.D. Gupta, Junior Engineer and Lallu Singh, Lineman. This evidence has not been disputed/controverted by the respondents. The respondents also did not dispute issue of Government Order dated 15.03.1991, relating to waiver of surcharges up to 30.11.1989. However, the respondents, in application dated 04.03.1998, took the plea that as the complainants had not deposited entire amount of the dues as such they were not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 15.03.1991. The complainants were in arrears of more than Rs.20000/- in 1991. Out of which only Rs.4225/- was deposited on 30.04.1991 as such Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 was validly issued for remaining amounts. When the respondents themselves issued bill of Rs.4225/- which was deposited by the petitioners on 30.04.1991 then they cannot dispute that some amount remained unpaid and the surcharges of the petitioners were not waived. The petitioners had deposited the bill as per demand of the respondents as such they cannot be deprived of the benefit of Government Order dated 15.03.1991 relating to waiver of surcharges. In such circumstances, Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 was illegal and liable to be quashed. District Forum although found Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992 was illegal but instead of quashing it, directed to realize it from B.D. Gupta, Junior Engineer and Lallu Singh, Lineman. However, Vikram Singh, in his Affidavit filed on 02.12.1993, admitted his liability of Rs.7945/-, which was deposited on 12.07.1993, as District Forum has imposed a condition for deposit of the aforesaid amount in the interim order dated 24.04.1993. As such the petitioners are not entitled for refund of that amount. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Recovery Certificate dated 25.09.1992, issued for realization of Rs.17139.90/- from the petitioners towards electricity dues is quashed. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for refund of Rs.7945/-, deposited on 12.07.1993. |
