ORDER
(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 296 of 2008. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to prepare the electricity bills according to the meter reading and issue the electricity bills in the name of Smt. Sunita Chauhan w/o Sh. Tarsem Singh Chauhan in future after mutation of her name.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant Sh. Rama Kant Sharma had taken L/F domestic electricity connection No. 083861/1243/696 of 5 KW on 08.08.2006. The electricity meter was installed with meter reading at 8266, for which a meter sealing certificate No. 23/928 dated 08.08.2006 was issued to the complainant. That from the date of installation of the said meter, the Electricity Department did not issue any electricity bill intentionally though the complainant is ready and willing to pay the same. The complainant demanded the electricity bills so many times from the Electricity Department, but with malafide intention they never issued electricity bill to the complainant. The complainant sold out the said property (N-145, Shivalik Nagar, B.H.E.L., Haridwar) where the said electricity meter was installed, to Smt. Sunita Chauhan w/o Sh. Tarsem Singh Chauhan on 21.06.2007 and also informed the Electricity Department about the transfer of property. The complainant sent a registered letter dated 23.09.2008 to the opposite party for demand of electricity bills, but they did not reply and also not issued any bill to the complainant. Therefore, due to inaction on the part of the Electricity Department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party has filed written statement before the District Forum, Haridwar and pleaded that the Electricity Department issued electricity bills regularly to the complainant, but he never paid the same. The fact came into knowledge of the opposite party that the complainant had sold out the property where the electricity meter No. 083861/1243/696 of 5 KW. L/F, was installed, but the purchaser did not apply for mutation of her name in the office of opposite party. It is wrong to say that the complainant ever came into the Electricity Department and demanded the bills. In case of non-receipt of electricity bills by the consumer, he may approach to the Electricity Department with meter reading, who may furnish the bills with due date for payment and the consumer may deposit the money of bills. It is wrong to say that the complainant sent any letter to the department. The complainant never approached the Electricity Department for demanding electricity bills. The consumer has filed the complaint with malafide intention to save electricity bills and penalty. Therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 01.09.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and have also perused the record. None is present on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
6. There is no dispute with regard to electricity connection No. 083861/1243/696 dated 08.08.2006, which was installed in the premises of the complainant-respondent by the Electricity Department. There is also no dispute that the respondent has sold his house, in which the said electricity meter was installed, to one Smt. Sunita Chauhan. The purchaser of the house, i.e. Smt. Sunita Chauhan, has not applied in the Electricity Department for mutation of her name after transfer of the house in her name.
7. Neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared before this Commission for oral submissions.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Commission that Smt. Sunita Chauhan is not a party in this case and she has not applied for the transfer of electricity connection in her name after purchasing the property from the respondent. Learned counsel has also argued that as per Regulation 3.3.5 published in Uttarakhand Gazette dated 21.04.2007 that “It shall be the responsibility of the consumer to get a special reading done by the Licensee at the time of change of occupancy or on the premises falling vacant and obtain no-dues certificate from the licensee.” Smt. Sunita Chauhan has to apply for transfer of electricity connection in her name. Learned counsel also submitted that from the perusal of paper No. 21, i.e. electricity bill, which shows that this electricity bill pertains to the period from 09.06.2006 to 30.12.2008, i.e. for about two years and there is no surcharge mentioned in this bill. If the respondent sold his house on 21.06.2007 and the purchaser had not applied for mutation in her name, then the electricity bills shall be issued in the name of original consumer.
9. The impugned order passed by the District Forum directing the appellant to transfer the electricity bills in the name of Smt. Sunita Chauhan is bad in law. Name of Smt. Sunita Chauhan can be transferred only after her application for transfer and the appellant can only issue bills in the name of Smt. Sunita Chauhan after transfer of electricity connection in the name of Smt. Sunita Chauhan. The District Forum below has also did not look into the matter that the respondent has not disclosed that what is the error in the electricity bill. There is no complaint of the consumer that this electricity bill is wrong. The Electricity Department issued bills on the basis of meter reading as well as with some surcharge.
10. From the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as well as on the basis of evidence filed on the record, we are of the view that the electricity bill (paper No. 21) pertains to the period from 09.06.2006 to 30.12.2008 is in the name of Sh. Rama Kant Sharma-respondent, which is for a sum of Rs. 8,202/-. The respondent had sold his house, in which the said electricity connection is installed, to one Smt. Sunita Chauhan on 21.06.2007, but the purchaser-Smt. Sunita Chauhan had never applied for transfer and mutation of her name regarding the said electricity connection in the office of Electricity Department. Therefore, the electricity bills regarding consumption of energy in the house of original consumer Sh. Rama Kant Sharma-respondent were issued by the Electricity Department in the name of respondent. One of the electricity bill dated 07.01.2009 is filed on record, therefore, the respondent cannot say that the appellant-Electricity Department has not issued any electricity bill to him. The respondent has not disclosed any error in the said electricity bill. According to the Regulation mentioned in Uttarakhand Gazette dated 21.04.2007 that it shall be the responsibility of the consumer to get a special reading done by the licensee at the time of change of occupancy or on the premises falling vacant and obtain no-dues certificate from the licensee, but the respondent has never approached to the Electricity Department to show that he has already sold his house to Smt. Sunita Chauhan and also not applied for No Objection Certificate from the licensee, i.e. Electricity Department. In this way, the District Forum has erred in passing the impugned order.
11. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is also liable to be dismissed. Consequently the appeal is fit to be allowed.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 296 of 2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
