Haryana

StateCommission

A/561/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUDHIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.561 of  2014

Date of the Institution: 03.07.2015

Date of Decision: 05.01.2016

 

1.  SDO (OP, Sub division, UHBVNL, Sampla, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

2.  J.E. (OP.), sub Office, UHBVNL, Chhara, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.                                                 

     .….Appellants

Versus

 

Sudhir singh S/o Balwan Singh S/o Hukam Singh, r/o village Chhara,Tehsil Bahadurgarh,Distt. Jhajjar.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Sudhir Singh respondent in person.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.      It alleged by the complainant that he applied for domestic connection with opposite party (O.P.) No.2 and deposited the requisite documents, but, after inspection of the house, they refused to release the connection on the ground that Rs.1,26,347/- were due against connection No. HD-09  which was previously installed in the premises.  That connection was in the name of his father. He told that his share in house was separate from his brother.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  they refused to release the connection as complainant wanted to take connection without paying Rs.1,26,347/-  which was due against the above said connection.  The connection was in the name of his father. The legal heirs of his father were duty bound to clear the pending dues. Thus there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.05.2015 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, it is directed that the respondents shall release the electric connection as applied in the name of complainant Sudhir singh.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants-O.Ps. vehemently argued that  as per sale circular NO.U-03/2013 re-connection or new connection cannot be given to any premises when there are arrears of any account due to the Nigam unless they are cleared in advance.  In the present case the meter was installed in the name of the father of the complainant and he was to pay Rs.1,24,303/-.  Unless that amount is paid the connection cannot be released in the name of the complainant.  In  support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2009 AIR (SC) 647.

7.      This argument cannot come to rescue of the appellants because as per report Ex.R-3 it is clear that meter No. BD-09, which was issued in the name of father of the complainant, was installed in the portion of the house which is in possession of his brother Yash. It shows that another son of Balwan Singh is using that connection. During the course of arguments complainant has also shown the bill dated  28.09.2014 vide which the demand of Rs.1,33,000/- has been raised.  It shows that the other meter is not disconnected as yet and brother of the complainant is using the electricity.   In such situation, O.Ps. cannot insist upon the complainant to pay the amount due.  Had the house been locked then it could have been a different matter.  Learned District  Forum rightly came to the conclusion that when other brother is using the premises complainant is not liable to pay any amount.  Appellants cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because the same is based on altogether different facts.  In that case when  a person sold the premises to another person he  was liable to pay amount to electricity department and subsequent vendee requested to release connection whereas in the present case meter issued in the name of the father of the complainant is already working and is being used by his brother.  He is requesting to install meter in the portion of the house, which fell to his share, so these arguments are of no avail. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.05.2015 and cannot be set aside..  Resultantly appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.1000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

January 05th, 2016                 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.