Delhi

North

CC/577/2009

RUCHIKA KHANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NDPL - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 577 /2009

 

Mrs. Ruchika Khanna/ Uppal,

W/o Sh. Vicky Uppal,

H. No.32, Block-A, Pocket-8,

Rana Pratap Bagh,

Delhi-110007                                                                                                                   …             Complainant

                                                          Vs

North Delhi Power Limited,

Through its District Manager,

District Civil Lines,

Grid Sub Station Building  ,

Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                                                                                  …            Opposite Party

ORDER

01/09/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant is the registered consumer of the OP having K. No. 31605092850 and using the electricity as sanctioned for the domestic purposes. The OP has issued wrong bill in the month of July, 2009 bearing Bill No.0907520976 for Rs.1,93,300/- with a due date of 05.08.2009 and as per the bill, the OP raised Rs.1,60,000/- for some adjustment amount whose details have never been provided by the OP to the Complainant. It has also not been clarified by the OP as to why an amount of Rs.1,93,300/- have been raised surprisingly in the bill of the Complainant for the month of July, 2009. It is further stated that there is no dues pending against the said connection and the Complainant has already paid the entire bill except the present/ impugned bill. The amount in the bill as dues of Rs.1,60,000/- has been raised illegally and baselessly added by the OP without verifying the actual position which shows the deficiency in service by the OP. The OP is threatening the Complainant for disconnection of electricity connection without any notice if the impugned bill is not paid by Complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint praying for directions to the OP:-

 

a. to remove the miscellaneous dues/ adjustment charges to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- shown in the bill no.0907520976 and issue fresh revised bill without late payment surcharges;

b. not to disconnect the supply of the Complainant of the connection bearing K No.31605092850 in the premises bearing no. 32, Block-A, Pocket-B, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi;

c. to pay the complainant the cost of litigation a sum of Rs.11,000/- as well as compensation for mental torture, harassment and agony to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and

d. any other relier and/ or order which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Complainant.

         

(2)      The Complainant has also filed an interim application for stay requesting to restrain the OP from disconnection of the electricity connection of the Complainant till the final decision of the complaint.

 

(3)      Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the connection bearing K. No.31605092850 is installed in the name of Ruchika Uppal at 32, Block-A, Pocket-8, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi for domestic purposes with the sanctioned load of 3 K.W. It is further stated that another connection bearing K. No. 31100871345 was earlier installed at the same address i.e. 32, Block-A, Pocket-8, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi in the name of Ram Dev for domestic purposes with the sanctioned load of 5 K.W. and the said connection was disconnected due to non-payment of electricity bills in the month of December, 2006 for the outstanding arrears of Rs.1,32,933/-. The said amount alongwith LPSC up to October, 2008 was raised as Rs.1,59,374/-. An inspection was conducted by Field Surveillance Staff and it was found that the said disconnected connection was being provided the electricity through Complainant’s live connection vide K. No.31605092850 unauthorizedly through illegal extension. Accordingly, a notice under Regulation, 2007 was issued to the Complainant on 15.10.2008 and the same was received by the Complainant as per delivery receipt annexed with the reply. Thereafter, the dues of disconnected Connection amounting Rs.1,66,466.05/- was transferred and debited in the account of the Complainant in the month of September, 2008. Hence, bill for the month of September, 2008 was raised amounting Rs.1,69,076/- including the transferred amount. Since the Complainant had not paid the said bill and bills raised thereafter, the outstaying arrears are accumulated to the tune of Rs.1,93,308/- up to July, 2009 which is correct and payable by the Complainant. Now, the total dues up to September, 2009  were Rs.2,00,494/-. Out of this amount, the Complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- and rest amount was transferred in to NTA. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. It is further stated by OP that the liability to pay the bill is fastened with the premises. The same is not only upheld by Hon'ble High Court in the matter of NDPL Vs. Madhu Garg (Division Bench) but also has been vindicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. Vs. DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. The Hon'ble National Commission has also upheld the aforesaid proposition in the matter of NDPL Vs. Prakashwati. In a recent judgment pronounced by Hon'ble High Court, the aforesaid legal view has been reiterated, in the matter of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. The connection verification report, Notice dated 15.10.2008 with POD and K. No. summary have also been filed by the OP.

(4)      The Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP stating that as per provision of Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003, the claim of the OP is highly time barred and the OP cannot claim the said amount by raising a bill after the statutory period, hence the same is liable to be quashed being bad in the eyes of law. As per Section  56 (2) of the Electricity Act, the OP cannot recover the dues after two years of the electricity dues but in this case, the service of the above outstanding dues in the bill of July 2009 of the Complainant's connection by the OP is against the law enumerated in Section 56 of the Electricity Act. However, the Complainant has stated that she never extended any electricity towards the disconnected connection as alleged in the written statement of the OP and has further stated that the claim of the OP against the said disconnected connection is time barred as the said connection has been disconnected in the year 2006. The Complainant has also contended that the connection was installed by the OP at the premises of the Complainant on 16.10.2006 after verification of the site, commercial feasibility and outstanding dues and at the time of sanctioning the above electricity connection, there was no outstanding dues against the premises of the Complainant. Therefore, the above electricity connection was granted and installed. There was no outstanding dues against the above connection of the Complainant as the dues prior to the billing of month of July 2009 was cleared and there was no outstanding dues. No show cause notice was served nor any opportunity of being heard was provided to the Complainant prior to the transfer of the above amount of Rs.1,59,374/- to the connection of the Complainant. No re-inspection of the premises, prior to the transfer of the above dues, was done by the OP which is violation of principle of natural justice and against the settled law of the land.

(5)      The Complainant has further contended that dues of one electricity connection bearing K. No. 31100871345 registered in the name of one Ram Dev was transferred to the existing electricity connection of the Complainant and the OP has cited the case law of Madhu Garg Vs. NDPL in supplementing its case but the facts and circumstances of the case of Madhu Garg is completely different from the present case as the facts pertaining to the Madhu Garg case relates to cases of new connection. Even the regulation 15 of DERC Regulation 2007 states about the outstanding dues at the time of sanctioning new connection, but the present case relates to transfer of dues of one disconnected connection to the other existing connection. The Complainant is neither beneficiary nor user of the disconnected connection installed in the name of Sh. Ram Dev. At the time of sanctioning electricity connection to the Complainant and at the time of verification of outstanding dues prior to the installation of the above connection, there was no outstanding dues in the premises. Hence, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhu Garg is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The installation of the Complainant's connection on 16.10.2006 clearly proves the fact that there was no outstanding dues on the premises in question till 16.10.2006. No show cause notice was served to the Complainant prior to the transfer of the above dues of Rs.1,59,374/- from the connection of Sh. Ram Dev to the connection of the Complainant.

(6)      Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. The Complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- with the OP and an interim order was passed on 07.09.2009 restraining the OP from disconnecting the electricity connection of the Complainant till the disposal of this complaint.
2. The Complainant was granted/sanctioned electricity connection by the OP on 16.10.2006 whereas another connection installed in the same premises in the name of Sh. Ram Dev was disconnected on 20.12.2006. Therefore, the OP did not inform any dues on any other connection in the building.
3. The complainant and Sh. Ram Dev are related to each other.
4. The Complainant has denied the fact of supply of electricity from its connection to the portion of the premises in which disconnected connection of Sh. Ram Dev was existing but the OP has filed a copy of connection verification report dated 08.04.2008 and compliance notice dated 15.10.2008 with delivery document duly signed by the Complainant.
5. The OP has served compliance notice to Complainant intimating the extension of supply to inactive connection and transfer of dues as per Regulation 49 (ii) of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standard Regulations, 2007 but the Complainant has failed to rebut this fact with any evidence.
6. It is settled law that the liability to pay the electricity bill is fastened with the premises. The various judgments referred in Para 3 above are relevant in this complaint.

(7)      In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. The interim order passed on 07.09.2009 is also vacated.

(8)      Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                                           ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                  DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

          Member                                                                                       President

                                                 DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                          DCDRC-1 (North)