Haryana

StateCommission

A/437/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GINNI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.437  of  2016

Date of the Institution: 18.05.2016

Date of Decision: 09.11.2017

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its SDO (Electricity) UHBVN, Sub-Division S-12, City Sub Division, Indira Colony, Sonepat.
2. The Executive Engineer (Electricity) Fazilpur, Tehsil and district Sonepat.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ginni Devi w/o Sh. Satbir Singh, r/o Rishi Colony, Kami road, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that on 19.09.2015 he moved an application with opposite parties (O.Ps.) for new domestic electric connection at  his residential house situated in Rishi Colony, Sonepat and also deposited Rs.1100/- as cost of meter and ACD etc. on 24.09.2015.  O.P.No.1 also issued  instructions to install electricity meter, but, no electric connection was released. Despite oral request she also  sent legal notice on 13.11.2015 to release connection, but, to no use.  O.ps. be directed to release connection and pay compensation as prayed for.

2.      In reply, it was alleged that previously M/s Ambey Packer was owner of this premises and was having account No. Y5-75 which was dis-connected vide PDCO No.27/543 dated 18.01.2005 because Rs.1,35,012/- were due towards that consumer.  As per instructions of the department new connection could not be released in the same premises unless outstanding dues were paid.  Averments about instructions issued by O.Ps. were wrong. Objections about locus standi, accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated  30.03.2016 and directed O.ps. to release new domestic electricity connection to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Husband of respondent/complainant vehemently argued that they were not liable to pay amount due towards previous consumer and learned District Forum rightly allowed their claim.  Appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed.  He placed  his reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. M/s Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri & Ors. 2010 (3) CPC 1.

7.      This argument is of no avail. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased this property from One Rajbala vide registered sale deed dated 28.06.2011 EX.C-5.  Previously this property was in possession of  M/s Ambey Packer and Rs.1,35,012/- were due towards the same and that is why connection No.Y5-75 was disconnected permanently on 18.01.2005, as mentioned above.  Electricity Board issued notification on 17.11.2001 that if amount due towards previous consumer are not paid then new connection cannot be released in the same very premises. This amendment was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd., 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 396.  It is specifically opined therein that if terms and conditions of supply of electric energy are amended then they are binding upon the supplier as well as consumer.  It is opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that unless the previous dues are cleared department is not bound to release new connection. When previous dues are not clear  O.ps. cannot be directed to release new connection in favour of complainant.  It is also opined in this case that opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995 2 SCC 648 is not applicable in such cases.  Complainant cannot derive any benefit from cited case laws because in that case question of recovery of dues was involved and not the release of new connection. Even otherwise  in that case also it was upheld that statutory rules or terms and conditions cannot be ignored.  For ready reference para No.9 of this judgement is reproduced as under:-

“9.     The position therefore can may be summarized thus:

1. Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the  property. Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier.
2. Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.”

Reference in this effect can be made to para Nos.8 to 14 of that judgement. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration these aspect.  So, impugned order dated  30.03.2016 is hereby set aside complaint is dismissed and appeal is allowed.

 

November 11th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.