Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/745/2012

Raveesh Kumar S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Model Town,Sub Division UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  745 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 13.07.2012.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 21.03.2016

Sh. Raveesh Kumar son of Sh. Dharam Pal aged about 33 years, resident of H. No. 19-B, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. SDO Model Town, Sub Division UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  
2. The Executive Engineer (OP) Division, UHBVN, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.   

                                                                                                                                                                     …Respondents. 

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. S.P.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              Sh. Rajinder Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Raveesh Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to withdraw Rs. 35,385/- levied upon the complainant illegally and unlawfully 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 is owner and using an electricity connection bearing account No. YT25/2079 in his house which is used for domestic purpose. The complainant is making the payments of electricity bills as per actual consumption of the electricity, as per meter reading duly raised by the OPs from time to time and nothing is outstanding. The complainant was astonished to receive a bill No. 9955 dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure C-1) from the Op No.1 whereby the Op No.1 has added a sum of Rs. 35385/- in the bill of complainant on account of defaulting amount of some disconnected connection, which was already disconnected in the year 2004 and has been compelling to deposit the same, without providing any detail of the said amount. It has been further mentioned that as per specific provision of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 amount of more than two (2) years old cannot be recovered by the Electricity Department, therefore, the charging of Rs. 35,385/- after a gap of more than 9 years is illegal, arbitrarily and unlawful, thus, cannot be recovered by the OPs. Further mentioned that as per schedule 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act 1963 and Electricity Act 1910 Ss 30B and 33, Electricity Department cannot claim an amount after three (3) years. Lastly mentioned that complainant has made several requests to OP No.1 to withdraw the impugned abovesaid amount but the OPs flatly refused to do the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi, no cause of action, does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined under C.P.Act. No deficiency in service and on merit it has been mentioned that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. An earlier electricity connection bearing account No. YT25/75 was released in the name of Pyare Lal whereas the said electricity connection disconnected due to defaulting in amount of Rs. 25711/- which stands against the account No. YT-25/75, has been got adjusted in the account of the complainant. Moreover, at the time of applying for the connection, an affidavit to pay any due amount, in the same premises has been given by the complainant.  Accordingly, the complainant is very much liable to pay the impugned bill amount. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 9955 dated 11.07.2012 amounting to Rs. 48570/- as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence. 

5.                     On the other hand, OPs failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities, hence the evidence of the OPs was closed by court order on dated 10.02.2016.

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

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant is having an electricity domestic connection bearing account No. YT/25/2079 which is evident from the copy of bill (Annexure C-1). It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs. 25,711/- has been added by the OPs in the bill of the complainant, which was outstanding of one Pyare Lal for the year 2004 as the OPs have admitted these facts in para No.4 of their written statement.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that firstly the disputed amount is not relating to the complainant. Further alleged that amount has been added in the bill of the complainant after a lapse of more than 9 years which is legally not recoverable from the complainant and draw our attention towards the section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 which is reproduced as under:

            No sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

9.                     Further referred the case law titled as Abhisar Developers Versus Torrent Power Ltd. 2011(2) RCR (Civil) page 55 wherein it has been held that Electricity Act 2003, Section 50- Electricity Dues- Transfer of premises- Electricity dues of transferor of property- Transferee of the premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous occupier- Such dues are against the consumer and not against the property- Further held:- Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property, and a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner occupier.

10.                   On the other hand, counsel for the Ops totally failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the OPs can charge the amount from the  complainant as they have himself admitted that the disputed amount of Rs. 25711/- was outstanding against one Pyare Lal and has not rebutted, that amount was not related to the year 2004.

11.                   After going through the above noted circumstances and facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are not entitled to recover the disputed amount of Rs. 25711/- alongwith surcharge up to date from the complainant as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The authority (supra) tendered by the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of the present case as transferee of the premises cannot be held           liable for the dues of the previous occupier which was outstanding of one Pyare Lal for the year 2004 as the OPs have admitted these facts in para No.4 of their written statement.  

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties not to charge the disputed amount of Rs. 25711/- alongwith surcharge upto date from the complainant and the same is hereby quashed and if any amount has been deposited against the disputed amount, the same be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. Order be complied within 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. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies 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: 21.03.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER