DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 455

 Instituted on:   05.11.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     08.02.2021

Harchand Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh R/O Village Ealwal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer,  PSPCL, Sub Division, Sub Urban, Sangrur,  District Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : Shri  G.S.Chatha, Adv.              

        For the OPs                        : Ms.Puja Sharma, Adv.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Shri Harchand Singh,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one electric connection bearing account number S46EB420510H  at his house and has been paying the electricity bills regularly.  Further it is averred that the OPs sent a bill dated 17.10.2018 and added an amount of Rs.32,170/- in the bill as sundry charges whereas nothing was outstanding against the complainant.  The complainant inquired it from the OPs, then the OP number 2 told the complainant that the said amount is balance and the Ops further told the complainant that he will face disconnection of the electricity connection in case of non deposit of the amount.  Though the complainant requested the OPs to withdraw the bill in question dated 17.10.2018, but of no avail.  Thus,  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.32,170/- raised vide bill dated 17.10.2018 and further to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and  that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question. It is stated further that the bill dated 17.10.2018 was sent to the complainant wherein an amount of Rs.32,710/- were added on account of sundry charges.  Further it is stated that the electric connection is running in the house of the complainant, earlier another electric connection number EB42/0039N was also running. Faqir Chand JE visited the premises of the complainant on 18.8.2018 and found that electric connection bearing account number EB42/0039N was  running in the name of Bachan Singh, who has died and the said electric connection has already been permanently disconnected and the house in question has been sold and in that house now Harchand Singh son of Pritam Singh is residing and defaulting amount of Rs.32,710/- was required to be charged from the complainant.  It is further averred that thereafter letter number 2102 dated 11.9.2017 was issued to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.32,710/- but the complainant did not submit any reply, as such the OPs charged the amount of Rs.32,710/- through SCA 588/89/0-.  So in the circumstances, it is stated that the complainant is duty bound to pay the consumption charges.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2010 in case Haryana State Electricity Board versus M/s. Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri and others 2011(1) MLJ 177 has held “Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, section 49, Electricity Act,1910, Section 24, Electricity Dues – A person purchasing property –Previous owner had not paid electricity dues. Purchaser not liable to pay the arrears. Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property.  Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier. Further held: where, however, statutory rules or terms and conditions authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser (1995)2 SCC 648, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 910: 2008(6) RAJ 403 relied.” 

5.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon  the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India announced in the year 2008 in case Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited versus M/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others Civil Appeal No.6565 of 2008 decided on 7.11.2008 wherein it has been held that “Electricity Supply Code, Clauses 4.3(g) and owner supplying the premises. Electricity dues were not paid by him. A purchaser of a premises cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant. However, the purchaser approached the Electricity Supplying Company for restoration of supply of electricity, the company can refuse the supply unless previous arrear were cleared.”

6.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced copies of bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-1 bill shows the demand raised by the OPs for Rs.32,170/- is on account of sundry charges.  Ex.C-4 is the affidavit of the complainant wherein he has deposed as per the complaint.  In the affidavit, it is clearly stated by the complainant that the OPs sent a bill dated 17.10.2018 and added an amount of Rs.32,170/- as sundry charges in the bill whereas nothing was outstanding against the complainant.

7.             On the other hand, as per the OPs this amounts related to the previous owner of the premises and the OPs have also tendered affidavit of Er. Prem Chand Garg, AEE, Ex.R-5 and has deposed as per the written version.

8.             Both the parties have submitted their respective judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but the judgment produced by the complainant is latest one pronounced in the  year 2010, wherein, it was clearly held that a transferee of a premises cannot be held liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier and is not liable to pay arrears.  So, it is clear that a transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor in title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a ‘charge’ on the premises.   A purchaser of a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant,  merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises.  So, as per the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,  the transferee of the premises cannot be made liable to pay the charges of the previous owner.

9.             From the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the disputed amount of Rs.32,170/- raised through bill dated 17.10.2018. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        February 8, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President