Haryana

Ambala

CC/284/2011

SARWAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R.K JINDAL

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                                         Complaint Case No. :    284 of 2011

                                                             Date of Institution    :     05.09.2011

                                                             Date of Decision      :    07.10.2016

Sarwan Kumar S/o Sh. Roop Chand R/o VPO Babyal, Tehsil & District Ambala.

……Complainant.

                                                                          Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division, A-14 Babyal, Ambala

through its SDO.

                                                                 ……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. R.K. Jindal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant   is having a domestic electricity connection vide account No. MN04-1829-A (old account no.D-812) with sanctioned load of 0.8 KV and consuming 80-112 units bimonthly and paying bill thereof regularly.  It has been alleged that complainant was surprised to know when he received bill No.05830 dated 26.08.2011 for the period from 30.05.2011 to 31.07.2011 of Rs.9831/- for 192 units. So, complainant visited the Op and requested to correct the bill in question but the Op told complainant that Rs.9113/- have been added in his bill of the consumption of his brother Neer Kumar. Complainant alleged that his brother Neer Kumar is living in a separate house alongwith his family and he has no concern with him as such, the amount of Rs.9113/- have been added wrongly in the bill of complainant and threatened to disconnect the electric supply which is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Op appeared and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been contended that electricity connections bearing account no.D570/1432-N in the name of Nir Kumar son of Roop Chand, account No.D-1 478/2221-X in the name of Karnail Chand S/o Roop Chand and account No.D-1 476/2220 in the name of Radha Rani wife of Krishan Lal were installed in the same premises in which the electricity connection of the complainant bearing account No.D 812/1829-A is installed. Out of the aforesaid four electricity connections, the electricity connection of Nir Singh S/o Roop Chand bearing a/c No.D 570/1432-N was disconnected for default in payment of electricity bills. The sum of Rs.27339/- was outstanding against the above electricity connection of Nir Singh which was initially transferred to debited in the  account of Sh. Karnail Chand vide notice bearing memo no.271/CA dated 19.04.2011, on the ground of same premises. But Karnail Chand objected to the same and by moving a representation on affidavit requested the SDO of OP Nigam that either to strike off the amount from his account or to transfer/debit the same in all the above said three accounts of Radha Rani, Sarwan Kumar i.e. complainant and Karnal Chand in  equal ratio, as all the above stated three electricity connections were installed in the same premises in which the electricity connections of Nir Singh was installed. On the  representation of Karnail Chand,  an enquiry made by Sh. Des Raj, JE, who reported that  the above stated three electricity connections in the names of Radha Rani, Sarwan Kumar and Karnail Chand were installed in one and the same premises.  Hence, the outstanding amount of Nir Singh was transferred  in the accounts of Radha Rani, Sarwan Kumar i.e. complainant  and Karnail Chand in equal share  i.e. a sum of Rs.9113/- was transferred   in each of the three accounts, on the ground of same premises.  The amount of Rs.9113/- was transferred to the account of complainant vide notice bearing memo no.470/CA dated 20.07.2011 which was sent to the complainant but the complainant refused to receive the same. As such, a prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavits Anenxures RX & RY alongwith documents as Annexure R-1  to R-5 and closed evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that Ops wrongly and illegally has credited the amount of Rs.9113/- as arrears vide bill Annexure C-1 in his electricity account No. MN04-1829-A (old account no.D812) whereas as per version of the Ops, the amount of Rs.9113/- is the share of defaulting amount of Rs.27339/- stands due in the name of Nir Singh –brother of complainant qua electricity A/c no.D 570/1432-N.  Counsel for complainant has relied upon case titled  Executive Engineer Kendrapara Electrical Divn. CESCO, Kendrapara Vs. Bindu Ranjan Parida and Ors W.P. (C) No.15138 of 2005  AIR 2006 Orrissa-160 decided on 12.05.2006.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops has argued that  they have rightly credited the amount of Rs.9113/- in the account of complainant being arrears of the same premises in which the electricity meter of complainant is installed.

 5.                    After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.9113/- so demanded by OP vide bill dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure C-1) as arrears being 1/3^rd of the amount of Rs.27339/- outstanding against the electricity connection no. D 570/1432-N of Nir Singh- brother of  complainant, has been added wrongly and without any basis.  It is pertinent to mention here that complainant is not consumer of the OP Nigam for demanding the amount of Rs.9113/- as the connection in question stands in the name of Nir Singh. We have gone through the Sales Circulars U-63/2007 & U-03/2013 produced by OP Nigam wherein mentioned that “some people have sold their land and have shifted to unknown places. It was decided that the present owner of the property be asked to deposit the defaulting amount because he is responsible for all the assets /liabilities. ALM/Lineman, who are well conversant about the area be asked to trace out the defaulters/ghost consumers”.  Meaning thereby that the first duty of the OP Nigam is to find out  the defaulter person   and when there is no alternative then to credit the arrears of other account of same premises, in the account of present owner/ electricity connection holder. But in the present case, the Op has not placed on record  any document by which it can be ascertained that the Op has made efforts to search out the defaulter Nir Singh  for recovery of Rs.27339/-.  So, the abovesaid circulars are applicable when consumer/person has sold their land and have shifted to unknown places as well as apply for transfer of service connection within 30 days and execute fresh agreement and furnish fresh security. But in the present case nothing of such sort has occurred rather the connection in dispute  already exist in the name of the complainant in the same premises prior to credit the amount in the account of the complainant which was due  against Nir  Kumar whose charges has been transferred to the complainant by OP Nigam.  We have gone through the case law  delivered by Hon’ble State Commission Haryana in case titled HSEB Vs. Sham Sunder III 1993 CPJ 1596 wherein it is held that “Sales Manual of the Haryana State Electricity Board-Instruction No.179-Electricity-Arrears-Complainant  Consumer of electric energy-Arrears of electricity connection of son-Being demanded from complainant-complaint-whether  instruction no.179 of the Sales Manual of the Haryana State Electricity Board warrants  the transfer of the arrears of one account holder to that of a different account holder?- (No). and  case titled Dev Raj Vinaik Vs. The Chairman, HSEB, Chandigarh & Ors. II (1994) CPJ-566 wherein it is held that (i) Consumer  Protection Act, 1986-Section 15-Appeal –Electricity-Connection-Electricity connection of appellant disconnected-Arrears of two other persons with separate meters in same premises fell due-independent connection of the complainant/appellant-Dismissed by District Forum-Appeal-Whether appeal to be allowed (Yes).”

                        In view of above discussion, the demand of Rs.9113/- demanded vide bill dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure C-1) is illegal and without any basis. As such, the Ops are not liable to seek the said amount from complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)        Not to charge Rs.9113/- from complainant as demanded vide bill dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure C-1).

 

                             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. 

                                                                                                                Sd/-

ANNOUNCED:07.10.2016                                                         (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER