This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana Panchkula ( in short, the ‘State Commission’) dated 10.09.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner / opposite party against the order of the District Forum Karnal.

2.         Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are that respondent Mohinder Singh filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( in short, the Act) against the respondent claiming that in the Month of May 2007, he was served with a electricity bill to the tune of Rs.85,835/- against tubewell connection bearing account no. D-105 installed at his farm land.  Since the bill was exorbitant, the complainant contacted respondent no.1 to know the details.  He was intimated that amount of Rs.5657/-  bill was on account of electricity consumption pertaining to tubewell connection bearing account no. D-105 and balance amount of Rs.79,728/- relate to tubewell connection account no. D-84 which  had been added to account no. D-105, as both the connections were in the name of same consumer.  On this, complainant requested the respondent no.1 to make a spot inspection but respondent no.1 directed the complainant to file an affidavit stating that he was not using the tubewell connection no. D-84. Accordingly, complainant filed an affidavit and bill was corrected and the demand of Rs.79,728/- was deleted.  The complainant deposited Rs.5657/- with respondent no.1 against the actual consumption charges pertaining to account no. D-105.  Thereafter, respondent no.1 did not issue any bill but disconnected the tubewell connection no. D-105 on papers but not at the spot.  When the respondent came to know about this, he filed the consumer complaint.

3.         The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement.  In the written statement, the petitioner took the plea that electric connection bearing no. D-84 as also connection no. D-105 were in the name of one Gurdial Singh s/o Alla Singh.  The said Gurdial Singh had not paid the outstanding dues against account no. D-84. The officials of the Nigam had issued a PDCO No. 5/29 dated 24.10.2005 against the outstanding amount of connection no.D-84 to the extent of Rs.48,289/- but the bill was not cleared.  Subsequently fresh PDCO was issued on 25.03.2006 for recovery of the dues amount to Rs.58866/- which was inclusive of the surcharge.  Since aforesaid amount was not paid, connection  no. D-84 was disconnected.  Subsequently in view of instruction No. 179 of the Sales Manual of the Department,  the dues pertaining to connection no. D-84 were transferred to connection no. D-105 which also stood in the name of Gurdial Singh and the bill was issued.  Thus, it is alleged that petitioner has acted in accordance with the rules and procedure.  As such, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

4.         The District Forum on consideration of evidence allowed the complaint and granted following relief to the respondent:

“In the facts and circumstances, we direct the OPs to reconnect the connection of the complainant and they are also restrained from recovering any amount from the complainant regarding the amount of Rs.58866/- which later on has increased with the passage of time. The OPs shall also not be entitled to get recovery of surcharge on the amount of Rs.58866/-. The OPs shall also not recover from the complainant any charges regarding restoration of the connection which has declared PDCO on 30.7.2008, which was effected on 15.9.2008. However, the OPs shall be entitled to recover from the complainant any amount which had become due regarding electricity consumed by the complainant regarding the account No.D-105. The OPs shall be at liberty to issue a fresh bill regarding that amount. The complainant shall also be liable to pay fresh bill, if the same is issued by the OPs. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly.

It is the case wherein the complainant was having an electricity connection bearing A/c No.D-105. As per version of the complainant she was paying the electricity bills regularly and nothing was due towards her. However, the opposite parties have added a sum of Rs.58866/- in the account of complainant despite of the fact that the said amount relates to A/c No.D-84 which as existed in the name of Gurdial Singh son of Alla Singh and the same was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.5/29 dated 24.10.2005. Challenging the action of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.”

5.         Feeling aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter reported in 1995 (2) SCC 648.

6.         Sh. Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner  has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon wrong reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court.  He contended that in the aforesaid judgment, the previous owner of the premises was in the arrears of electricity charges and the Supreme Court held that the complainant was not liable to pay the said amount and non issuance of connection to the complainant before the clearance of the arrears of the previous owner was clear deficiency in service.  Counsel has thus further contended that bill pertaining to connection no. D-84 was added in the bill of the tubewell connection no. D-105 being used by the respondent in accordance with instruction no. 179 of the Sales Manual of the petitioner and as such it cannot be held to be deficiency in service. 

7.         Respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He submitted that electricity connection no. D-84 was never used by him and, therefore, he cannot be saddled with the electricity bill pertaining to aforesaid connection. 

8.         I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

9.         The basic contention of the petitioner is that connection no. D-84 and D-105 stood in the name of one Gurdial Singh and, therefore, in view of instruction no. 179 of the Sales Manual of the Board, the petitioners were well within their rights to include the arrears of electricity charges pertaining to connection no. D-105 in the electricity bill of connection no. D-105. 

10.       In order to succeed in the above argument, the petitioner is required to establish that there actually were legally irrecoverable arrears of electricity charges in respect of connection account no.D-84 when the so called arrears were included in the electricity bill of the petitioner’s account no. D-105.  On perusal of record, it is seen that copy of the so called unpaid bill so added to the electricity bill of the respondent pertaining to connection no. D-105 has not been filed by the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked to show the so called unpaid bill pertaining to electricity connection account no. D-84, he failed to do so.  He could  not even tell the details of electricity consumed and the period of the alleged unpaid bill.  In absence of any cogent evidence in this regard, it is very difficult to conclude that there actually were arrears of electricity charges in respect of electricity connection account no. D-84, which could be transferred to electricity connection of account no. D-105.  Thus, in my view the petitioner has failed to give any justification for adding those arrears of electricity bill pertaining to respondent’s tubewell connection no. D-105.  Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 

11.       Counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out that electricity connection no. D-105 was in the name of Gurdial Singh who has since expired.  Therefore, it cannot be restored in his name.  In view of this, the impugned order is modified to the extent that connection no. D-105 be restored and transferred in the name of the respondent on his moving an application after complying with the necessary formalities.

12.       The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.