Haryana

StateCommission

A/277/2015

RICHPAL ALIAS RISHIPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     277 of 2015

Date of Institution:     24.03.2015

Date of Decision :      29.04.2016

 

Richpal alias Rishi Pal son of Shri Phool Singh, Resident of Village Moonak, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Sub Divisional Officer Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Village Moonak, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rohit Dheer, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated February 4^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Richhpal-complainant/appellant, is having electric connection bearing account No.UM-14/4424 at Village Moonak, District Karnal. Another electric connection No.UM-14/1885 in the same premises was also installed in the name of appellant’s father namely Phool Singh. Phool Singh did not pay the bill of his connection worth Rs.13,618/- and therefore the electric supply of connection No.UM-14/1885 was disconnected vide Permanent Disconnection Order (PDCO) in the year 2010. As per the instructions of the UHBVNL, the defaulted amount Rs.13,618/- was transferred to the account of the appellant but he did not pay the same even despite notices Exhibits C-1 and C-2 issued to him. Resultantly, the amount increased to Rs.33,292/- and by adding the said amount, the appellant was sent bill No.0881 dated 27.09.2011 (Exhibit C-2) for Rs.35,581/- (including arrears of Rs.33,292/-). Alleging it deficiency in service, the appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The respondent/opposite party contested complaint by filing reply and while justifying the demand so made prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Indisputably, two electric connections, that is, connection No.UM-14/1885 and UM-14/4424-M in the names of Phool Singh (appellant’s father) and the appellant were installed in the same premises. Connection No.UM-14/1885 was disconnected on account of non-payment of the bill and PDCO was issued. The amount due towards the said connection was demanded from the appellant but he did not pay the same. Accordingly, the defaulted amount was added in the bill (Exhibit C-2) of the appellant.

5.      The question for determination before this Commission is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount of the disputed bill which was in the name of his father in the same premises?

6.      In D.H.B.V.N.L. vs. M/s Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 396 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the electricity department is entitled to recover the arrears of bill from the subsequent owner/occupant of the house.

7.      In Civil Appeal No.6565 of 2008, titled as Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, decided on 07.11.2008, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

9.     The supply of electricity by a distributor to a consumer is sale of goods. The distributor as the supplier, and the owner/ occupier of a premises with whom it enters into a contract for supply of electricity are the parties to the contract. A transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor in title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a charge on the premises. A purchaser of a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. The supplier can therefore neither file a suit nor initiate revenue recovery proceedings against a purchaser of a premises for the outstanding electricity dues of the vendor of the premises, in the absence of any contract to the contrary.

10. But the above legal position is not of any practical help to a purchaser of a premises. When the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations. If the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them.

11.    A stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electricity supply is disconnected for nonpayment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. Having regard to the very large number of consumers of electricity and the frequent moving or translocating of industrial, commercial and residential establishments, provisions similar to clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor. We do not find anything unreasonable in a provision enabling the distributor/supplier, to disconnect electricity supply if dues are not paid, or where the electricity supply has already been disconnected for nonpayment, insist upon clearance of arrears before a fresh electricity connection is given to the premises. It is obviously the duty of the purchasers/occupants of premises to satisfy themselves that there are no electricity dues before purchasing/occupying a premises. They can also incorporate in the deed of sale or lease, appropriate clauses making the vendor/lessor responsible for clearing the electricity dues up to the date of sale/lease and for indemnity in the event they are made liable

 

8.      The case in hand is fully covered by both the authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court, mentioned above. Undisputedly, the appellant has inherited the property where the electric connection bearing account No.UM-14/1885, in the name of his father, was installed and after his death the appellant got a fresh connection installed. The UHBVNL-respondent added the defaulted amount in the account of the appellant. Once the appellant has inherited the property, he also inherited the liability with respect to the electric connection of his father also. Thus, the demand made by the respondent from the appellant was justified.

9.      Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 29.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL