Haryana

StateCommission

A/552/2016

DHARAM SINGH( NOW DECEASED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

18 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   552 of 2016

Date of Institution:   15.06.2016

Date of Decision :    18.05.2017

Dharam Singh, now deceased through his LRs:-

1.      Omi Devi-widow

2.      Sunheri Devi-mother

3.      Chamkor Singh-son

4.      Harnam Singh-son

5.      Salochana Devi-daughter

6.      Paramjit Kaur-daughter

7.      Harmeet Kaur-daughter

All Residents of Village Jogna Khera, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

1.      The Chairman, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

2.      Sub Divisional Officer (OP), Sub Division No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 33 KV Sub Station, Bhadarkali Mandir Jhansa Road, Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred by appellants-complainants against the order dated April 29^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.144 of 2012.

2.                Dharam Singh s/o Sh. Chuhar Singh Resident of Village Jogna Khera, District Kurukshetra, who is no more in this world now, applied to Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL)-Opposite Parties (respondents herein) for providing electricity connection for running his tubewell installed in the agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jogna Khera, in which he was a co-owner in possession. Vide Sale-deed dated 13^th February, 1996 (Exhibit C-1), Dharam Singh during his life time, purchased agricultural land measuring 2 Kanals out of the total share of Jarnail Singh s/o Sh.Chamel Singh, in the total land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas, jointly owned and possessed by Chamel Singh and other co-sharers.

3.                Earlier Chamel Singh s/o Sh. Sardar Singh, who was also co-sharer in the above mentioned agricultural land, was provided an electricity connection for running his tubewell. Chamel Singh became defaulter regarding payment of the electricity consumption charges and an amount of Rs.3,05,894/- was outstanding against Chamel Singh, sometimes prior to execution of the sale-deed dated 13^th February, 1996 (Exhibit C-1) in favour of Dharam Singh. Ultimately, electricity connection in the name of Chamel Singh was disconnected.

4.                Dharam Singh-complainant, who died during pendency of this complaint, applied for electricity connection on 4^th September, 2008. Security amount and other dues which were needed for providing electricity connection were deposited by Dharam Singh. Despite time and again requests by the complainant, the opposite parties did not provide electricity connection for tubewell of complainant-Dharam Singh. The electricity connections were being provided by the opposite parties to the persons who had applied after submitting application by Dharam Singh. Thus, while releasing tubewell electricity connections to other persons, right of Dharam Singh was ignored. Information under the Right to Information Act, has also not been provided by the opposite parties on the application filed by Darshan Singh-brother of complainant Dharam Singh. It is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to provide electricity connection for tubewell of the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

5.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint and that the complainant is not a “consumer” of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken plea that a tubewell was got installed by Chamel Singh s/o Sh. Sardara Singh in the same agricultural land and he was provided an electricity connection for running his tubewell. Chamel Singh-consumer did not make payment of regular electricity consumption bills and an amount of Rs.3,05,894/- was outstanding against him.  The electricity connection in the name of Chamel Singh was disconnected due to non-payment of electricity consumption charges.  In such circumstances, a fresh electricity connection cannot be provided to the complainant without making payment of defaulted amount regarding electricity consumption charges.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

7.                After going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated April 29^th, 2016 dismissed the complaint.  Hence, the present appeal.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

9.                The present complaint was filed by Dharam Singh during his life time on 29^th March, 2012. Dharam Singh died on 5^th April, 2013 and after that he is being represented through his legal heirs. To prove the ownership of the agricultural land where the electricity connection is to be provided, copy of Jamabandi was not adduced in evidence before the District Forum. However, at the time of arguments, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (Annexure-A) of Village Malikpur has been placed on the file. It is evidence from the copy of Jamabandi that Jarnail Singh was co-sharer in the total agricultural land measuring 144 Kanals – 6 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.62, Khatauni No.99-106 situated within the revenue estate of Village Malikpur. Vide registered sale-deed dated 6^th May, 1996 (Exhibit C-3), share of Jarnail Singh out of the total land was purchased by Dharam Singh-complainant. it is an admitted fact that earlier a tubewell was installed in the agricultural land mentioned above by Chamel Singh s/o Sh. Sardara Singh.  There also appears to be no controversy of any type that electricity connection provided in the name of Chamel Singh was disconnected long time back as Chamel Singh could not make payment of the total electricity consumption charges of Rs.3,05,894/-, which  were outstanding prior to the year 1996 when the Dharam Singh-complainant had purchased share of Jarnail Singh.

10.              It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for electricity connection after installation of his tubewell in the agricultural land owned by him qua his share. There is no controversy of any type that the complainant had deposited the security amount and other charges needed for providing fresh electricity connection.  The version of the opposite parties in this case is that fresh electricity connection cannot be provided in the name of complainant because the complainant has not made payment of the total amount of Rs.3,05,894/- due towards Chamel Singh. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy that the electricity connections have been provided to other persons who applied for providing electricity connections for running tubewells after the date the complainant applied for electricity connection. 

11.              Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that due to non-payment of the defaulting amount of Rs.3,05,894/-, the electricity connection cannot be provided to the complainant. Learned counsel for the opposite parties based his arguments upon Clause 4.3.1 of Sales Circular No.U-15/2014 (Annexure-A). Clause 4.3.1 of the above mentioned Sales Circular (Annexure-A), is reproduced as under:-

“4.3.1 Purchase of existing property

Where the applicant has purchased an existing property, whose supply has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant’s duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the licensee and obtained a “no-dues certificate” from the licensee. In case such “no-dues certificate” has not been obtained by the previous owner, the applicant shall request the previous owner to obtain a no dues certificate from the licensee and handover the same to him. On receipt of such request from the previous owner, the licensee shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any, or issue a “no-dues certificate” within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of request. If the licensee does not issue the no dues certificate or dispatch a letter intimating the dues to the previous owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of his request, the applicant shall be absolved of any liability on account of dues against the previous owner and the licensee shall have to seek legal recourse separately against the previous owner for recovery of such dues.

In case the licensee dispatches a letter intimating the dues to the previous owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of his request and in case these are not deposited by the previous owner, the applicant shall be liable to clear any dues against the previous owner before a new connection is released in his favour.

If however, subsequently at any stage, the audit points out any additional amount due on account of period of the previous owner, it shall be the liability of the new consumer to pay such amount".

 

12.              We have closely perused Clause 4.3.1 of the Sales Circular No.U-15/2014 (Annexure-A). This clause is not of much help to the opposite parties in this case to decline prayer of the complainant for providing a new electricity connection as facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat different. As per the facts of the case in hand, the complainant did not purchase the agricultural land from Chamel Singh where he has installed a new tubewell and wants fresh electricity connection. Chamel Singh used to be a consumer of the opposite parties as earlier the electricity connection which has been disconnected, was in his name. The complainant has purchased the land where he has installed a new tubewell from Jarnail Singh. Apart from, Chamel Singh and Jarnail Singh, there are number of co-sharers in the total land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.62, Khatauni No.99-106. The provision of Clause 4.3.1 of Sales Circular No.U-15/2014 (Annexure-A), mentioned above, may be applicable if the subsequent purchaser purchases the land or any other property from the same person in whose name the electricity connection was earlier provided which has been disconnected due to default in payment of electricity consumption charges. Legally and technically, each and every co-sharer in the joint land has right on each and every portion of the joint property unless the same is got partitioned. It is not uncommon that agricultural land remains joint property of the co-sharers in the revenue record but for the purpose of cultivation and better use of the property, the co-sharer may cultivate different portions, different Khasra numbers of the joint land. 

13.              In our view, Chamel Singh, who was simply a co-sharer in the total joint land measuring 144 Kanals-6 Marlas, had obtained an electricity connection and he did not make payment of the electricity bills.  Findings cannot be given that other co-sharers in the same joint land cannot install separate tubewell and cannot obtain separate electricity connection. Just as Chamel Singh was entitled to obtain the electricity connection in his name in the same way, the complainant also became entitled to install a new tubewell and to obtain a new electricity connection in his name after purchase of a share in the joint land. Chamel Singh and other co-sharers have no objection of any type if the electricity connection is provided to the complainant.  At the cost of repetition, we want to make it clear that the complainant does not want restoration of the electricity connection which was earlier provided to Chamel Singh and the complainant has not purchased the land from Chamel Singh for which he installed his new tubewell and he wants separate electricity connection. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant has installed a separate tubewell and he has not applied for providing electricity connection on the same tubewell which was installed by Chamel Singh.  Moreover, technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of natural justice. Findings in such of matters should not be based merely on technicalities. On this point, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case law Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 647.

14.              Cited Case law Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors   (Supra),   is of no help to the opposite parties as in the case in hand, the complainant did not purchase the land as well as tubewell from the previous consumer Chamel Singh. The complainant purchased share of Jarnail Singh, another co-sharer in the joint land and installed his separate tubewell therein.

15.              In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it is not a case of restoration of the earlier electricity connection provided in the name of Chamel Singh. The complainant is entitled to obtain electricity connection in his name as prayed in the complaint. Learned District Forum has committed an error while giving findings in this complaint in favour of the opposite parties. Resultantly, findings given by the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order dated 29^th April, 2016, are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. Appeal filed by the appellants-complainants is allowed. The complaint filed by the appellants-complainants is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to provide fresh electricity connection in the name of the legal heirs of deceased Dharam Singh-complainant for running tubewell, positively within a period of two months from the date of order.  

 

Announced: 18.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL