Haryana

Karnal

189/11

Smt.Krishana Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.C. Kasyap

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.189 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 5.04.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 15.01.2016

 

Smt.Krishana  Devi wife of Shri Jai Bhagwan, near Bharat Gas  Agency, Railway Road, Taraori Disitrict Karnal.

 

.                                                                   ……..Complainant    

                                      Vs.

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

2.Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Division No.1, Taraori tehsil Nilokheri district Karnal.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.H.C.Kashyap  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Opposite Parties

ORDER:                 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that she purchased a share of shop bearing Municipality No.307-308/6  as described in para no. 3  of the complaint from  Gurmit Singh and his brother. Thereafter, she obtained electricity connection bearing account No. ST-21-1946-N in her shop from the Opposite Parties. She paid the electricity consumption bills upto  December, 2010. However, on 3.12.2010, she received a notice from the Opposite Parties for recovery of defaulting amount of Rs.20,960/- in  respect of electricity connection  bearing No. A-1013 in the name of  Gurmit Singh.  The said notice was duly replied by her on 6.1.2011, wherein it was made clear that she purchased the share out of the property owned by Gurmit Singh and his brother, whereas remaining share remained with them and Gurmit Singh was running  a shop therein and also got installed a new connection. Gurmit Singh, and that  owned and possessed the property at village Pakhana and was also owner in possession of residential house situated opposite to Gurdwara,  wherein electricity meter was installed by the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Parties refused to accept the aforesaid genuine  request and remained adamant to effect recovery of the amount. This  act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in services, which caused her mental harassment.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has got no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped by her own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide thepresent complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that premises of the complainant was checked by the checking party  of the Opposite Parties and it was found that previously connection bearing No. A-1013 was installed in the said premises, which was in the name of Gurmit Singh. The said electricity connection was disconnected due to non payment of amount of Rs.20,960/- and the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant as the same related to the same premises. Therefore, the complainant was legally bound to pay the same. It has been asserted that Opposite Parties were  adopting due and legal procedure  for recovery of the public money and there was no deficiency in services on their part.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavits of Shri Devender Singh SDO and  Kuldeep Singh CA Ex.O1 and Ex.O2  respectively and documents Ex.O3  and Ex.O4 have been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant she had purchased a share of the shop from Gurmit Singh and his brother, whereas the remaining portion remained with them and Gurmit Singh was running a shop therein and had obtained separate connection, which was later on disconnected. It has further been alleged that Gurmit Singh was having other property at village Pakhana and  one residential house in  which a connection was installed by the Opposite Parties. It has further been claimed that amount due in respect of the electricity connection in the name of Gurmit Singh could be recovered from him and the complainant is not  liable to pay that defaulting amount.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties laid emphasis  on the contention that the electricity connection bearing no. A-1013 SP was in the name of Gurmit Singh, who became defaulter on account of non payment of Rs.20960/- , therefore, his connection was disconnected.   The complainant purchased  the premises from Gurmit Singh, therefore, she is liable to pay the defaulting amount of electricity connection in the name of Gurmit Singh as per sales circular no. U-63/2007.

8.                 The argument advanced by the learned counsel for  Opposite Parties  cannot be accepted being devoid of force. The relevant portion of the Sales Circular No.U-63/2007 is reproduced as under:

                        “ It was explained 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 be cause 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.”

 

                   A bare reading of the said Sales Circular makes it  emphatically clear that recovery of the defaulting amount can be effected from the present owner  of the premises only in case when the previous owner, who had sold the premises, had shifted to unknown place. The Opposite Parties have not pleaded in their written statement that Gurmit singh and his brother have shifted to some unknown place and their whereabouts are not known.

 

9.                 The  complainant in para no.5 of the complaint specifically pleaded that in the remaining portion of the shop purchased by her, the previous owner Gurmit Singh was running a shop and he had also got installed a new connection therein. Gurmit Singh  also owned and possessed the other properties at village Pakhana and was also owner in possession of a residential house situated opposite Gurdwara,  wherein electricity meter was installed by the Opposite Parties. It is worth mentioning that Opposite Parties in the written statement have not  denied these assertions of the complainant specifically.  If, the Opposite Parties had given another connection to Gurmit Singh , the must be within their knowledge, but in para no.5 of the written statement , the rest of the contents of para no.5 of the complaint have been denied for want of knowledge. There is no specific assertion that Gurmit Singh was not having any other property and no  fresh connection was installed in any premises owned by him.  When the assertions of the complaint have not been specifically denied, the same are deemed to have been admitted by the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Opposite Parties have neither pleaded nor there is any evidence that whereabouts of the Gurmit Singh and his brother, who sold the share of the premises to the complainant, are not known and that they do not own any other property and  no electricity connection has been issued in their name.

 

11.               In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in observing that Opposite Parties had no legal right to effect recovery of the defaulting amount  from the complainant in respect of the connection in the name of Gurmit Singh. Therefore, the notice of the Opposite Parties to the complainant for recovery of the said amount certainly amounted to deficiency in services which could cause mental harassment to the complainant.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to withdraw the demand of Rs.20960/- raised from the complainant.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to her.  The Opposite Parties are directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-        Sh.H.C.Kashyap  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Opposite Parties

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.H.C.Kashyap  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.