Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/224/2014

Chandra Kishore S/o Mansha Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Garg

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                        Complaint No. 224  of  2014.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 13.05.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 09.06.2016.

Chandra Kishore s/o Sh. Mansha Ram, R/o House No. 6/538, Mohit Vihar, Shree bhuneshwar Mandir Road, Saharanpur, at present residing Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer, (OP) Division, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman/M.D. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               … Respondents.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Mukesh Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by Chandra Kishore being beneficiary/user of the electricity connection bearing account No. JC-11/6487  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to quash an amount of Rs. 70136 demanded vide bill bearing No. 1455 dated 11.12.2013 for the period of 25.09.2013 to 25.11.2013 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased a house constructed on Khasra No. 52//16, 17/2, 18/1 & 13/2, 14, 15, 17/1 situated at Mouza Ganga Nagar Colony Jagadhri vide sale deed No. 9258 dated 22.01.2013 from Smt. Aarti wife of Om Parkash, resident of House No. 122 Ganga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, in which an electricity connection bearing account No. Y31JC/116487F was installed in the name of Om Parkash. Since the purchasing of the house in question complainant being beneficiary of the electricity connection was paying the electricity bills of due dates i.e. 22.2.2013, 22.4.2013, 26.6.2013, 26.8.2013 and 24.10.2013 as per meter reading issued by the Ops. The complainant has been astonished when he received an electricity bill bearing No. 1455 issued on 11.12.2013 (Annexure C-7) for a period of 25.09.2013 to 25.11.2013 in which a sum of rs. 70136 was shown as sundry charges. On this, the complainant visited the office of the Ops and requested to remove/delete the same but the Ops refused to pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and settled that if he will not deposit the same the electricity connection shall be disconnected. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; complainant has got no locus standi or any cause of action; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. On merit, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the house of Smt. Aarti where an electricity connection bearing no. JC-11-6487 was installed in the name of one Sh. Om Parkash and the said Om Parkash was having one another electricity connection bearing account No. JC-11/6184 which was permanently disconnected on dated 20.08.2013 due to non payment of Rs. 70136/- and the said defaulting amount has been transferred to the second account of Om Parkash i.e. in the present account bearing No. JC-11/6487 on 12/2013 being same consumer. Thus, there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 79791/- up to June 2014 in the account of Om Parkash bearing account No. JC-11-6487 as per account statement Annexure R-1 in which an amount of Rs. 70136/- has been added on account of defaulting amount of another account of Om Parkash husband of previous owner Aarti Devi. So, in this way, the beneficiary/ user of the said electricity connection bearing account No. JC-11/6487 is liable to pay the said outstanding amount. It has been further mentioned that there is no relationship between the complainant and the Ops as consumer and supplier as the defaulting amount has been demanded from Om Parkash having electricity connection bearing account No. JC-11/6184 not from the complainant. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of sale deed dated 21.01.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of electricity bills Annexure C-2 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal Goel, SDO as Annexure RW/A and documents such as account statement w.e.f. 10/2010 to 06/2014 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant Chandra Kishore had purchased the house in question from one Smt. Aarti Devi vide sale deed bearing No. 9258 dated 21.01.2013 which is evident from the copy of sale deed Annexure C-1. The only version of the Ops is that one Om Parkash was having two electricity connections bearing No. JC-11-6184 and JC-11-6487 in his name and an amount of rs. 70136/- was due in his account bearing No. JC-11-6184 w.e.f. 10/2010 to 10/2013 which was not paid by the said Om Parkash and due to default in the payment the said connection bearing No. JC-11/6184 was permanently disconnected vide PDCO dated 08/2013 bearing No. CA/3761 dated 20.08.2013 and defaulting amount Rs. 70136/- was transferred in another account bearing No. JC-11/6487 of Om Parkash installed in the premises in question purchased by the present complainant. So, the complainant is liable to pay the total amount of Rs. 79791/- in which an amount of Rs. 70136/- on account of account bearing No. JC-11/6184 has been included, as the complainant has purchased the said house and using the electricity connection installed in the same premises.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that complainant is not entitled to pay the same as the disputed amount is related to one Om Parkash whereas he has purchased the house of his wife Aarti Devi. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant being beneficiary was paying the electricity bills regularly in respect of electricity connection bearing No. JC-11/6487 which is installed in the premises which he had purchased from one Aarti Devi and nothing is due against that connection either against the complainant or previous owner Smt. Aarti Devi. The alleged disputed amount is only relating to another electricity connection bearing account No. JC-11/6184 which was neither remained installed in this premises nor any such electricity bill has been raised by the Ops prior to this against previous owner Smt. Arti Devi w/o Om Parkash. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the copy of ledger (Annexure R-1) of bearing account No. JC-11-6184 and argued that the disputed amount of Rs. 70136/- is relating to the period of 10/2010 to 10/2013 and not a single penny has been paid in this account by the said Om Parkash and the Ops kept mum for such a long time and not disconnected the electricity supply of that connection prior to 08/2013. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint and quash the defaulting amount of Rs. 70136/- which has been wrongly transferred in the account bearing No. JC-11-6487 and referred the case law titled as Naveen Punj Verus Punjab State Electricity Board, 2011(3) CLT Page 612, Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh and further referred the case law titled as Shalinder Kumari Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2010(3) CLT Page 531.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the contents of complaint as well as documents, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the amount of Rs. 70136/- alongwith surcharge is liable to be quashed as from the perusal of account statement Annexure R-1, it is clearly evident that the disputed amount of Rs. 70136/- is relating to the another account bearing No. JC-11-6184 for the period from 10/2010 to 10/2013 and has been wrongly transferred in the account No. JC-11-6487 by the Ops after purchasing the house in question by the complainant. No explanation has been given by the Ops department that why the Ops department kept mum for a period of 3 years and not disconnected the electricity connection of the said account bearing No. JC-11-6184 during the ownership of the previous owner Smt. Aarti Devi wife of said Om Parkash and further not transferred the said amount in this account prior to purchase of the house in question. Although the disputed amount has been transferred in the account of the same person but the Ops has not disclosed that whether both the electricity connections were installed in the one property i.e. in the house purchased by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the same  due to on account of defaulting premises, so, on this angle also, the complainant is not liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 70136/- raised by the Ops vide bill bearing No. 1455 dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure C-7).

10.                   In the circumstances noted above and going through the law cited by the counsel for the complainant, we have no option except to quash the amount of Rs. 70136/- alongwith surcharge demanded vide bill bearing No. 1455 dated 11.12.2013.

 11.                  Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops not to charge the amount of Rs. 70136/- alongwith surcharge demanded vide bill No. 1455 dated 11.12.2013 from the complainant and overhaul the account of the complainant accordingly. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the said disputed amount of Rs. 70136/- from the said Om Parkash as per law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 09.06.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                              (S.C.SHARMA)                                    PRESIDENT

                              MEMBER