THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 407-13
Date of Institution : 4.6.2013
Date of Decision : 13.2.2015
Naresh Kumar Agnihotri son of Sh. Dharamvir Agnihotri resident of 99, Foreset Avenue, Para Moule, New Jerssey (USA) at present at V & P.O. Sheron, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran
Harbans Lal son of S.Bhagat Singh resident of House No. 204, Kashmir Avenue, Batala Road, Amritsar both through their special attorney holder Smt.Sukhjinder Kaur wife of Sukhwinder Singh Randhawa, resident of 33/34, Ek Roop Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar
.....Complainants
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its MD, The Mall, Patiala service through the SDO South Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,Adjoins District Court, Amritsar
.....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.S.K.Sharma, Adv
For the opposite party : Smt.Neena Kapoor,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Naresh Kumar Agnihotri and Harbans Lal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that they have
-2-
appointed Smt.Sukhjinder Kaur wife of Sukhwinder Singh as their special attorney and she is competent to sign, verify and file the present complaint. According to the complainant they have purchased property measuring 300 sq.yds bearing H.No. E-70, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar which was previously the ownership of Sh.Gurjit Singh Gill and Inderjit Singh Gill both sons of Sukhraj Singh. The said property was mortgaged by them against loan facility with Indian Overseas Bank, Hall Bazar,Amritsar and later on they defaulted in repayment of the loan amount to the said bank. The said bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the property in dispute after completing all the formalities was auctioned by the bank authorities and the present complainants purchased the said property for valuable consideration alongwith electricity connection installed there vide certificate of sale dated 9.4.2012 issued by the authorized offier of Indian Overseas Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar in their favour. As such the complainants since then have been using the electricity vide account No. A24TS480051F and have been paying the bills regularly to the opposite party without any default. However, opposite party issued memo No. 2438 dated 5.4.2013 in the name of Gurjit Singh which was received by the complainant being the occupier and owner of the said building in which the alleged electric connection was installed thereby the opposite party demanded Rs. 2,38,568/- which was outstanding in respect of the electric connection bearing account No. TS 48/52 in the name of Gurjit Singh which has since been closed and this amount has been transferred in the account No. TS-48/51 which is now running in the property in question purchased by the complainant through auction. On receipt of memo the complainants approached the opposite party that they have purchased this property alongwith connection and have no concern with the other account No. TS48/52 to which the said amount of Rs. 2,38,568/- relates , as such the opposite party is not entitled to transfer the said amount in the account No. TS 48/51. The complainants showed the sale certificate
-3-
to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the demand of Rs. 2,38,568/- claimed vide memo No. 2438 dated 5.4.2013 or in the alternative to set-aside the same.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that notice has been given as per rules of the opposite party demanding an amount of Rs. 2,38,568/-pertaining to outstanding against Gurjit Singh, owner of the premises/house pertaining to account No. TS 48/52 in which the present conection account No. TS 48/51 is running. It was denied that Rs. 2,38,568/- has been wrongly and illegally added in the account of the complainant. It was submitted that the impugned demand has been made on account of previous arrears of account No. TS48/52 installed in the same house in which account No. TS48/51 which is used by the complainant. In view of notification of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 24.5.2010 and clause 30.15 enshirned in it that in case of transfer of property by sale/inheritence, the purchaser/heir will be liable to pay all charges due and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer. It was submitted that impugned demand has been made on account of previous arrears sustaining in the different account existed in the same building.While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Balkar Singh,SDO Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence
-4-
produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainants purchased property measuring 300 sq.yds bearing H.No. E-70, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar which was previously the ownership of Sh.Gurjit Singh Gill and Inderjit Singh Gill both sons of Sukhraj Singh. The said property was mortgaged by them against loan facility with Indian Overseas Bank, Hall Bazar,Amritsar. Later on they defaulted in repayment of the loan amount to the said bank. The said bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the property in dispute after completing all the formalities was auctioned by the bank authorities and the present complainants purchased the said property for valuable consideration alongwith electricity connection installed there vide certificate of sale dated 9.4.2012 issued by the authorized officer of Indian Overseas Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar Ex.C-3. As such the complainants since then have been using the electricity vide account No. A24TS480051F and have been paying the bills regularly to the opposite party without any default. However, opposite party issued memo No. 2438 dated 5.4.2013 in the name of Gurjit Singh which was received by the complainant being the occupier and owner of the said building in which the alleged electric connection was installed thereby the opposite party demanded Rs. 2,38,568/- which was outstanding in respect of the electric connection bearing account No. TS 48/52 in the name of Gurjit Singh which has since been closed and this amount has been transferred in the account No. TS-48/51 which is now running in the property in question purchased by the complainant through auction. The complainants approached the opposite party that they have purchased this property alongwith connection and have no concern with the other account No. TS48/52 to which the said amount of Rs. 2,38,568/- relates , as such the opposite party is not entitled to
-5-
transfer the said amount in the account No. TS 48/51. The complainants showed the sale certificate to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the outstanding amount of electricity consumption in the name of the previous owner cannot be recovered from the auction purchaser of the said building. In this regard he relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in case M/s. North East Fertilisers Pvt.Ltd & Another Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. 1995(1) CCC 578 as well as the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Another 1995(2) Supreme Court Cases 648 in which it has been held tht where the premises for which supply of electricity had been disconnected for non-clearance of consumption charges by the previous consumer -owner, held that the auction purchaser of the premises would not be liable to meet the liability of the previous consumer. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of sevice on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that, the notice dated 5.4.2013 was issued as per rules of the opposite party an amount of Rs. 2,38,568/- was demanded pertaining to outstanding against Gurjit Singh, owner of the premises/house pertaining to account No. TS 48/52 in which the present conection account No. TS 48/51 is running. The opposite party has rightly charged this amount from the complainant as he has purchased the property in question from Indian Overseas Bank in auction and Gurjit Singh was the owner of the property in question. The complainant has,therefore, stepped into the shoes of Gurjit Singh . The real state of affairs is that the impugned demand has been made on account of previus arrears of account No. TS 48/52 installed in the same house in which electricity connection bearing account No. TS 48/51 current account is being used by the complainant. In view of the notification of the Punjab State Electricity
-6-
Regulatory Commission dated 25.5.2010 and clause 30.15 enshrined in it states that in case of transfer of property by sale/inheretence, the purchaser/heir will be liable to pay all charges due and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer . Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. M/s. Paramount Polymers Pvt.Ltd 2007(1) CCC 578 (SC) the auction purchaser is liable to pay the due and the electricity board/corporation/company is entitled to recover dues from the existing consumer as per terms and conditions of the supply framed u/s 49 of the Electricity Act. More over, the Electricity Act as well as rules and rgulations of the opposite party have been changed and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there were two electricity connections running in the property bearing H.No. E-70, Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar in the name of its owner Gurjit Singh i.e. account Nos. TS 48/51 and TS 48/52. The said properety of Gurjit Singh was taken over by the Indian Overseas Bank , Hall Bazar branch,Amritsar as Gurjit Singh became defaulter in repayment of the loan amount in which the aforesaid property was mortgaged , in the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Consequently the said bank auctioned the said property which was purchased by the complainants in auction vide certificate of sale dated 9.4.2012 Ex.C-3, as such the complainants have stepped into the shoes of Gurjit Singh. One of the electric connection bearing account No. TS 48/52 in the name of erstwhile owner Gurjit Singh was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of arrears of electricity consumption amounting to Rs. 2,38,568/- . In
-7-
the same premises another electric connection bearing account No. TS 48/51 was running. The opposite party transferred the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,38,568/- outstanding against account No. TS 48/52 in the account of running electric connection bearing account No.TS 48/51 as per rules and regulations of the opposite party and the opposite party issued notice to the complainant dated 5.4.2013 Ex.C-4 asking the complainant, who is now the consumer of electricity vide account No. TS 48/51 in the same premises, to pay the aforesaid amount to the opposite party. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Dakshin Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. M/s. Paramount Polymers Pvt.Ltd 2007(1) CCC 578 (SC) that in view of the amended section 49 of the Electricity Act 1948, where there are outstanding electricity dues of previous consumer the auction purchaser is liable to pay the dues and the electricity board is entitled to recover dues from existing consumer as per terms and conditions of supply framed in the amended section 49 of the Electricity Act. In view of the notification of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 25.5.2010 clause 30.15 , it is clear that in case of transfer of property by selling/inheritence, purchaser/heir will be liable to pay all charges due and found due recoverable from the consumer. As such law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Isha Marbles case supra is not applicable to the present case.
9. Consequently we hold that opposite party was justified in demanding the aforesaid amount outstanding against account No. TS48/52 from the present complainant who is using the electric connection bearing account No. TS 48/51 installed in the same premises.
10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
-8-
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
13.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
