Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/22/2023

SMT SANJEEDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY URBAN DISTRIBUTION DIVISIONIII - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jun 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग
अलीगढ
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/2023
( Date of Filing : 21 Jan 2023 )
 
1. SMT SANJEEDA
W/O SABIR KHAN AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO 145/15A FIRDAUS COMPLEX HAMARD NAGAR A JAMALPUR ALIGARH
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY URBAN DISTRIBUTION DIVISIONIII
JAMAL PURALIGARH
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINER
EUDDIV LAL DIGGI ALIGARH
3. NASREEN AHMAD S/O NAZER AHMED
R/O BARI MASZID JAMALPUR ALIGARH PRESENT R/O 1313 NAGALA PATWARI ALIGARH
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 19 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

JUDGMENT

  1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission alleging that he is the consumer of the Op through electricity connection and  prayed for  the following reliefs-
  2. (a)Ops no. 1 and 2  be directed not to realize to amount raised by the demand notice from the complainant.

(b) Opbe directedto pay to the complainant Rs.10000/.

  1. The Complainant has stated that she had purchased the house no. 4/469 situated at Jamal Pur Mafi Aligarh by a sale deed dated 1.6.2012 executed by Smt Saira Bano W/o Sagir Khan who had purchased the said house from OP no.3 Nassem Ahmad S/o Nazeer Ahmad by sale deed dated 25.3.2010. An electricity connection no. 2731740000 of the category LMV-2 was installed at said house by the OP no.3. The connection was disconnected on 19.6.2012 and meter was removed same day. It was noted on the back of the meter sealing certificate on 19.1.2013 as meter was OK and not in use and assessment as per rule. There was no case of electricity theft and connection was permanently disconnected on 19.6.2012. As per knowledge of complainant the entire amount of dues was paid at the time of disconnection. Op no.1 wrongly issued demand notice dated 27.12.2021 against the complainants predecessor entitle Nasir Ahmad. Complainant is not liable to pay the said amount and Op no.1 has no right to realize the amount of demand notice from the complainant. The said amount pertains to the period prior to permanent disconnection made on 19.6.2012 and is barred from realization by time under the law.
  2.  Op has filed WS in which it was stated that the electricity was consumed  till the date of permanent disconnection made on 19.6.2012 and the amount of outstanding dues for Rs. 12059 was demanded. No dues certificate was obtained by the complainant prior to purchase of the house. The connection was permanently disconnected vide office memo dated 15.6.2020 and the demand is not time barred.
  3. Complainants have filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  Op has also filed his affidavit and papers  in support of his pleadings
  4. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
  5. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
  6.  The alleged demand notice dated 27.12.2021 for Rs.61922/ was issued against to OP no.3 Naseem Ahmad who had sold house to Smt. Saira Bano by sale deed dated 25.3.2010 and Smt. Saira Bano had sold the house to the complainant by sale deed dated 1.6.2012. The connection was permanently disconnected on 19.6.2012 as per office memo. The connection was not granted in the name of Smt. Saira Bano, predecessor in tittle of the complainant who  had purchased the house only 19 days before permanent disconnection. Therefore complainant may be excused  from the liability of obtaining No dues Certificate from office of the OP. Complainant  has not purchased the house from Op no.3 Naseem Ahmad and Complainant was not required to inquire about the dues against Op no.3 Naseem Ahmad. Ops have stated in WS that the actual amount to be paid is Rs.61922/- Rs41863/= Rs.12059/ whereas the amount of Rs.61922/ has been raised in the demand notice and thus the alleged demand notice is vitiated on facts and is not liable to be paid. The alleged dues  in respect of electricity connection permanently disconnected on 19.6.2012 was not being recovered by the process continuously  made since the date  it became  due for more than 2 years as there is no proof of the same and therefore its recovery is barred under clause 6.15(b) of the UP Electricity Supply Code,2005.
  7.   The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.
  8.   We hereby direct the op no.1 and 2 not realize the amount of demand notice 27.12.2021 from the complainant and op shall pay Rs. 5000/ as litigation expenses to the complainant.
  9.  Op shall comply with the direction within a month failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
  10. 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. A copy of  judgment be sent to Chief Engineer  for necessary action.
  11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.