ORDER

15.12.2023

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief the facts of the present case are that the complainant has purchased the residential premises bearing no. J-869, Jahangirpuri, Delhi in the name of his wife Smt. Kashmere Devi on 16.8.2007 against registered power of attorney. It is further stated that the complainant found the electricity supply of the aforesaid premises disconnected and so approached the opposite party to reconnect it, but the opposite party was delaying the reconnection without telling the complainant any sufficient reason either on one or the other pretext.
2. It is stated that on 31.12.2007, one of the employees of the opposite parte suggested the complainant to take the bill/final bill of the electricity supply against the aforesaid premises. On his suggestion, the complainant has taken the electricity bill on 31^st December, 2007. This electricity bill bearing its No.0709199787 shows that there was an arrears of electricity for Rs.34,140/- till 31.12.2007 against K.No.45200149239L. It is further stated that the complainant immediately deposited Rs.17,000/- as full and final settlement against the aforesaid arrears of electricity supply of the aforesaid premises of the complainant with the old electricity meter vide its No.1409390, and after two days, the said electricity supply of the complainant has been reconnected through the same old electricity meter present on site.
3. It is stated that the opposite party further insisted to deposit Rs.17,750/- as the balance amount Rs.17,140/- including the LPSC thereon illegally, and again without any notice disconnected the said electricity supply of the complainant. The same was again reconnected after the payment of Rs.17,750/- to the opposite party through cheque encashed on 17/07/2008 from his account in HDFC Bank, Adarsh Nagar,Delhi.
4. It is stated that the opposite party has not sent any bill to the complainant and complainant repeatedly made the oral as well as written complaints to the opposite parte. More particularly the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party on 14.11.2008 that the opposite party is not sending any bill to the complainant, then the opposite party has taken the reading of the meter on 14.11.2008 and gave the acknowledgment showing therein the meter reading as 12760 units.
5. It is stated that the opposite party suddenly replaced the old electricity meter vide its No.1409390 by new electric meter bearing its no.41127148 and at the time of replacement of the old meter reading was recorded as 12848 units on 20.12.2008. It is further stated that as per the statement of KNO summary of the opposite party, the meter reading on 21.03.2004 was 12027 units. It is stated that the complainant has deposited all the arrears of electricity till 31.12.2007 before the reconnection of the aforesaid supply.
6. It is stated that the complainant was shocked and surprised after receiving the electricity bill vide its no.0901556432 dated 28.01.2008 for Rs.2,98,140/- which shows the consumption for July 2008 is 68698 units, which is highly inflated, wrong and illegal. It is further stated that the opposite party has not sent any notice under section 56(1) for the disconnection of the aforesaid electricity supply till date, but on 25.03.2009 the employees of the opposite party came to the aforesaid premises of the complainant and tried to disconnect the aforesaid electricity supply of the complainant but on the earnest requests of the complainant, with folding hands, the said employees has given three days time for the settlement of the matter by depositing all arrears of electricity bill till date. But on 26.03.2009 the OP disconnected the electricity supply illegally.
7. It is stated that the demand of the opposite party for Rs.2,98,097.82 is illegal and against the electricity laws and consumer laws time being enforce. So, the opposite party is deficient in services and practicing unfair trade practices as mentioned aforesaid for demanding the illegal electricity charges and illegally attempted the complainant to disconnect his aforesaid electricity supply and for disconnecting the electricity supply.
8. The complainant has prayed to cancel all the electricity bills showing the illegal electricity consumption charges for inflated reading 68698 units, to cancel the electricity bill for bill month of July, 2008 of Rs.285260.97, to restrain permanently the opposite party from disconnecting the electricity supply for the complainant against K No.45200149239L at premises bearing no. J-869, Jahangirpuri, Delhi immediately, to pay the compensation for Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment of the complainant and his family members, to pay the cost of litigation to the complainant, any other or further relief which this hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
9. OP filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant has not approached to honorable forum with clean hands and suppressed the material fact. It is stated that the present complainant has not revealed the proper facts of the case before this Hon’ble court. It is further stated that in this case the petitioner has not been making the payment of even the current demand charges on time. It is stated that no equity must  tilt in favour of the complainant.
10. It is stated that it is well settled proposition of law in catena of judgments that the dues against premises are liable to be paid by the occupant of the premises and it is also well settled by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that the dues transferred from the another connection which was disconnected due to arrears not paid, on the live connection are to be paid, if the same has been done after following this due process of law. Therefore, complaint of the complainant is required to be dismissed out rightly on this ground alone.
11. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant without any locus standi as it is an admitted position in the complaint that electricity connection bearing K No.45200149239 was/is having the RC as Tek Ram and not the complainant. It is further stated that again it is an admitted position that the said RC has not given him any authority to present any case before this Hon’ble court. Complainant has not mentioned in which capacity complainant has been contesting the present case. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as continuation of the present proceedings will lead to absurdity.
12. It is stated that the supply of connection was disconnected on 23.9.04 due to non payment of dues. As per site report dated 4.6.08 supply was found to be illegally restored and it was also found that meter was recording reading on the basis of regular consumption by the consumer pursuant to the said site report penalty of Rs.5000/- was imposed as the illegal restoration charges as per Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that in the month of Sept, 08 a bill on the basis of reading in the meter i.e for 68698 units was raised amounting to rs.285200/-.  The accumulated of Feb,09 was challenged under the present proceeding wherein the stay was granted by this Hon’ble court and amount is lying in NTA. Therefore, no case is made out in the present complaint and the bill under challenge is payable.
13. It is stated that in addition to the above submission it is stated that as per record it shows that complainant has not being showing its bonafide since he has not paid even the current consumption charges as he is liable to pay the same. It is further stated that consumer has not been showing his conduct by which he may seek the equitable relief from this Hon’ble court. It is stated that the consumer has not been making the payment of even the regular consumption charges despite sending regular bills by the respondent. Therefore, no equity should tilt in favour of the complainant.
14. It is stated that without prejudice to what is submitted above, it is further stated that the contention of the complainant that the demand (against electricity consumption) in question is barred from 56(2) of Electricity Act is not applicable in the present complaint. The aforesaid provision has been wrongly interpreted by the complainant. The demand in question is payable by the complainant and it is not barred by 56 (2) of the Electricity Act.
15. The OP referred to the judgment of H.D.Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1987) AIR (Del) 219 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) Vs. H.D. Shourie, (Letters Patent Appeal No.106 of 1987), decided on 17.12.93. It is stated that the period of limitation will begin to run only from the time when the bill is raised for the first time (because that is when it becomes due and payable). Therefore, if no bill has been raised for electricity consumption, limitation will not come into play.
16. It is stated that the period of limitation (i.e two years) envisaged in section 56(2) would come into play only when the sum in question becomes due and payable. Therefore, if no bill has been raised for electricity consumption, limitation will not come into play. Hence, DISCOMS can legitimately raise a demand for electricity consumed for an anterior period, if such consumption has escaped billing. The OP referred to the case of the Hon’ble Supre court in M/s Swastic Industries vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (1997) 9 SCC 465, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that there is no deficiency of service in making supplementary demand for escaped billing.
17. On merit all the allegations denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that complainant has not been paying his regular consumption bills in time and supply was disconnected on 23.07.2004 and as per site  report dated 04.06.2008 supply was there and IR charges has been imposed to the tune of Rs.5000/- in the month of September, 2008.
18. It is stated the earlier meter was electromechanical meter which was to be changed as the meters of other consumers. The supply was got disconnected but same was illegally restored which is not recorded in the system. It is further stated that the bill was never finalized by the OP and reading bill was prepared in September 2008, for about 35 months for the 68698 units. It is stated that the supply was found used in the month of June 2008, the bill for reading was prepared and reading on 03.06.2008 is 79824. It is further stated that the meter is an old mechanical meter therefore, reading and the time of meter 12848 is not possible. It is stated that reading in June 2008, and July 2008 cannot be ignored and being the old electromechanical meter, reading cannot be possible as alleged by the consumer. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed.
19. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied contents of WS and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
20. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit dated 02.08.2011 and reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on true photocopy of registered power of attorney dated 16.08.2007 Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C, copy of protocol seal dated 20.12.2008 Ex.C2. Another affidavit filed dated 07.10.2011. In this affidavit complainant relied on true photocopy of registered power of attorney dated 16.08.2007 Ex.C1, electricity bill of December 2007 Ex.C2, photocopy of electricity bill August 2008 in the name of Tek Ram Ex.C3, copy of written complaints Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 and acknowledgment of OP Ex.C6, copy of protocol seal dated 20.12.2008 Ex.C7, copy of meter reading on 21.03.2004 Ex.C8 and copy of impugned bill dated 28.01.2009 Ex.C9.
21. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar Commercial Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
22. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as OP.
23. We have heard Sh. Luv Kumar Aggarwal counsel for complainant and Sh. Harish Purohit AR of OP and perused the record.
24. As per record it is admitted case of the complainant that the original electricity connection was in the name of Tek Ram as per documents filed on record. The premises bearing no. J-869, Jahangirpuri Delhi purchased by complainant in the name of his wife Smt. Kashmere Devi on 16.08.2008 from one Ranveer Singh. However, no electricity bills filed on record in the name of seller Ranveer Singh. As per clause 3 of the property documents the purchaser may get water electricity and sewage connections and other services, however, there is no document on record that Kashmere Devi at any point of time applied for electricity connection after purchasing the premises. The electricity connection remains in the name of Tek Ram who remains as registered consumer. It is pertinent to mention here that OP has taken objection with regard to locus standi of complainant Satpal. It is admitted case of complainant that the property was purchased in the name of his wife Kashmere Devi from one Ranveer Singh and he has no legal right as per agreement in the property. The electricity connection stands in the name of registered consumer Tek Ram. There is no jural relation between complainant Satpal either with Ranveer Singh or Tek Ram registered consumer, therefore, we  are of considered opinion that complainant Satpal has no locus standi to alleged impugned electricity bill and other alleged actions of OP in the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable as Satpal has not locus standi to file the present case.
25. In order to appreciate respective contentions of both the parties let us peruse the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the case of Mrs. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs.NDPL 129 (2006) DLT 213 Division Bench of Hon’ble High court discussed the powers vested in DERA and DERC which are reproduced hereunder:-

14.In our opinion, there is no distinction between the purchaser of a premises who was aware that there were outstanding electricity dues against the previous owner/tenant, and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the new owner/occupant before supply can be continued/restored. This is because of the statutory provision contained in Clause 2 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply which has been quoted above.

15.In our opinion, whenever a person purchases a property, it is his duty to find out whether there are outstanding electricity dues in relation to the premises or not, and he cannot be allowed to say later that he was unaware of the fact that there were electricity dues of the previous owner/tenant.

16.In view of the General Condition of Supply, it is the duty of the new owner/occupant to himself make enquiries and find out whether there was such dues or not. The General conditions of Supply are statutory in nature (being delegated legislation), and hence the question of bonafide or malafide does not arise, and in either case the new owner/occupant of the premises has to pay the dues against the previous owner/tenant, Page1121 if he wishes the electricity supply to be continued/restored.

17.It is obvious that he purpose of framing Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply was that many persons against whom there were huge electricity dues tried to avoid payment of the same by selling/transferring the property, and in this way the electricity department/electricity company could not recover its dues. In our opinion, thereis no illegality or unconstitutionality in sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the General Condition ofSupply.

18. It may be mentioned in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P State Electricity Board AIR 1998 4 SSC 1715, the Supreme Court took the view that even in the absence of a contract the terms and conditions of supply will be governed by the statutory Regulations and they will applicable to the consumers who will be bound by them.

19.Under Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply contained in the tariff order 1997-98 and 2001-02 which has been framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, it has been specifically stated that supply of electricity is subject to the condition that the applicant deposits development charge, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including outstanding dues against the premises and/or disconnected connection.

20. The above Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply has been framed under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as well as Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and hence is a piece of delegated legislation.

21.The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has struck down Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply, With respect to him, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the saidClause as it comes within the purview of the Tariff Order framed by theDelhi Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. We do not agree that the General Conditions of Supply required approval of the State Legislature under the proviso to Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as in our opinion they are not Regulations made under Section 79.

22. We agree with the learnedSingle Judge who has disposed of Writ Petition (c) No. 3532/2003 Ms. Madhu Garg v. North Delhi Power Ltd. by directing her to pay the dues for the electricity consumer by one Jathedar Richpal Singh. However, as already observed above, even is she was unaware she has to pay the outstanding dues.

26. In our opinion, this is not the correct position of the law. The new owner/occupant, whether he was a heir or successor or not, has to paythe outstanding dues if he wants continuation/restoration of the electricity connection. Further, notice of existence of arrears is not the requirement in the Clause2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of the supply. Aslo, there is no requirement for the licensee to first initiate recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against the old consumer before disconnecting the supply. As observed by the Supreme Court in Swastic Industries Vs. MSEB (vide para 5):-

Page 1123 it would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board. Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the Suit and the intimation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges.

27. In our opinion, an interpretation of the law which furthers the preservation and protection of public property ought to be adopted. If arrears of electricity charges outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with a contractual claims of damages, it would encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or other in respect of such arrears and evade the consequences of non-payment of electricity charges viz. disconnection/non-resumption of supply.

26.  The full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, in a recent case titled as K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2109-2110 of 2004 decided on 19.05.2023 alongwith several other Civil appeals laid down the principle of law as under:
    •  

328. The conclusions are summarised below:

a. the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities;

c. For an application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’ the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the PART I premises are difference, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection;

d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character;

e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners;

f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act;

g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge;

h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.

27. It is admitted case of the complainant that as per the documents the registered consumer is Tek Ram. Smt. Kashmere Devi wife of complainant purchased the property from one Ranveer Singh. As per record OP filed documents which shows that on 23.09.2004 the electricity connection was disconnected due to non payment of dues. It is further admitted that after purchase of the property the electric meter was also changed. There was no bill prepared for about 35 months and electricity was illegally restored. Applying the well settled as discussed hereinabove the statutory dues stands against the premises not against the registered consumer. The statutory dues cannot be waived off. It is the duty of the purchaser to verify all the dues on the property at the time of purchasing. The purchaser of the property is under legal obligation to pay all the statutory dues of electricity which are due against the property. Therefore, Smt. Kashmere Devi is liable to pay all the dues of electricity of the premises from the date of purchase of the property.
28. On the basis of above observation and discussion the statutory demand of OP and impugned bill has been raised legally and same is payable by the purchaser of the property and the registered consumer of the electricity connection. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present case and on merit as well present case is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
29. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  15.12.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                                RAJESH     

PRESIDENT                                                                         MEMBER