Haryana

StateCommission

A/1037/2015

SALONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HVPN - Opp.Party(s)

HARISH BHARDWAJ

30 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1037 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 20.11.2015

and 04.12.2015

Date of Decision: 30.05.2016

 

Dr. Saloni Gupta W/o Dr. Varun Gupta R/o W/No.7, Railway colony, Gohana Distt.Sonepat.

                                                          .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      UHBVN Ltd. Panchkula through its Chairman through XEN OP. Division UHBVN Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

2.      SDO City S/D UHBVN Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, Distt.Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that she purchased a plot from Urmila  Rani W/o Ram Phool vide sale deed dated 31.10.2014.  Thereafter she applied for electric connection with O.P.No.2-respondent  No.2 on 20.05.2015, but, the same was not allowed on the ground that there was dispute regarding adjoining property in between Vishal S/o Shiv Narain, whereas there was no dispute with Urmila Rani. At the time of purchase she inspected the spot and there was no connection or any amount was due towards Urmila and  O.Ps. were bound to release electric connection. During scrutiny she came to know that AC No.C4/9 MS01-1004 issued on 22.02.1998 was in the name of Ramphool which was disconnected on 25.01.2013 and Rs.50,656/- were demanded from his real brother namely Vishal and Vishal challenged validity of the demand in the Civil Court which was still pending. She was not having any blood relation with Vishal and his family members and was not liable to pay any amount due towards them.   

2.       O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that Urmila Rani is wife of Ramphool S/o of Shiv Narain and they were residing in the same property.  Rs.4,28,686/- were due against  connection No.C-4/9-MS01-1004 existing in the name of Ram Phool  After application of complainant, when the record was checked it was found that the aforesaid amount was pertaining to the connection existing on this premises.  As per policy of Government unless previous amount was cleared new connection could not be released.

3.       After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.10.2015 and observed as under:-

“ We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the  respondent that no electricity connection can be issued against the defaulting premises and similar is the position in the case in hand and thus, we find no force in the present complaint and we have no other option except to dismiss the same.  We order accordingly.”

4.       Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-(appellant) has preferred this appeal.

5.       Arguments heard. File perused.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Civil appeal No.7899 of 2012 titled as Special Officer, commerce, Noreth Eastern Electricity Company of Orissa & Anr. Vs. M/s Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited decided on 09.11.2012 , new connection cannot be denied even if previous owner was liable to pay the amount because charge was against the consumer and not the property.  Learned district Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly dismissed the complaint.

7.       This argument is devoid of any force.  As per circular dated 27.11.2001 if any amount is due towards connection, existing on any premises, subsequent vendee cannot obtain new connection without clearing the dues as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal(civil) No.4574 of 2006 tilted as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. decided on 19.10.2006.  In this case it is clearly discussed that after insertion of clause 21A  in the terms and conditions of supply subsequent vendee cannot escape from the liability to pay the previous amount.  In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has also discussed the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme court expressed in M/s Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) I SCR 847 which is discussed  in Special Officer, Commerce North Eastern Electricity company of Orissa  (in short “NESCO’s) case (supra).  There was no circular, notification or rule of any type regarding previous dues and that is why it was opined that subsequent vendee is not liable to pay the previous dues. 

8.       More so in that case property was purchased at the time of auction by liquidator,  whereas in the present case complainant purchased this property from the wife of Ramphool against whom Rs.4,28,686/- were outstanding. From the perusal of the copy of sale deed dated 30.10.2014 it is clear that just before the sale deed  on 31.10.2014 Ramphool gave this property to his wife Urmila Rani by way of gift on 06.06.2014 so that it can be alleged that nothing was due against her. It is a clever device of the parties to escape from the liability to pay the previous bill.  From the perusal of letter Ex.P-2 it is clear that dispute with Vishal is pertaining to other connection and not this connection.  In these circumstances complainant cannot ask to release connection without clearing previous dues.  The findings of learned District  Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

May,30th  2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.