Haryana

Karnal

147/2011

Jaswinder Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Umesh Kapoor

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No. 147 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 14.3.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 4.12.2015

 

Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh resident of village Sambhi tehsil Nilokheri district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

 

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

2.SDO, “OP” Sub Division, UHBVN, Nilokheri district Karnal.

 

                                                                  …..Opposite  Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

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

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Suraj Kanwar   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, on the averments that complainant is  a consumer of the Opposite parties ( in short Ops) in respect of tubewell connection bearing account No. AP-22/1211-F for sanctioned load of 10 BHP, for irrigation purposes of agricultural land. He had been paying the bills regularly as per consumption recorded in the meter. However, on 27.12.2010 he received a bill of Rs.13078/- and in the said bill an amount of Rs.11672/- was charged on account of sundry charges/allowance without giving any details. After receiving the said bill, he contacted the office of OP No.2,  but the details of the alleged amount of Rs.11672/- were not given.  On 27.2.2011 he received bill for an amount of Rs.12045/-, wherein the disputed amount was increased to Rs.11855/- as arrears.  On making enquiry, he came to know that the  alleged amount related to electricity connection bearing account NO.585, which was installed in the house situated at village Sambhi, previously owned and possessed by his father Gurcharan Singh. After the death of Gurcharan Singh, he and other legal heirs of Gurcharan Singh  had sold the said house to Malkeet Singh son of Charan Singh,  vide  sale deed No.949/1 dated 24.2.2004 and since then Malkeet Singh had been  continuing in  possession of the said house and using the said connection. The complainant or his father had no concern whatsoever. Therefore, Malkeet Singh was liable to pay the amount of the disputed bill and the demand raised by the Ops from him is illegal, null and void. However, the Ops are threatening to disconnect his electricity connection, which certainly amounts to deficiency in services and has caused mental agony, pain and harassment to him.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that electricity connection bearing account No.585 was installed in the house owned the father of the complainant and an amount of Rs.11672/- was outstanding as bill in respect of the said connection. Therefore, the demand raised by the Ops from the complainant is quite legal and valid and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to  Ex.C5 have been tendered.

4.                Ops could not lead any evidence and evidence of the Ops was closed vide order dated 21.10.2014.

 

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.                There is no dispute between the  parties regarding the fact that electricity connection bearing account NO.585 was installed in the house  situated at village Sambhi and the said house was owned by Gurcharan Singh, the father of the complainant. The  disputed bill is  in respect of the said electricity connection.

7.                As per the case of the complainant his father Gurcharan Singh had died and house owned by him in village Sambhi was sold by him and other legal heirs to Malkeet Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 24.2.2004. This plea of the complainant stands established form the copy of the registered sale deed Ex.C5. Possession of the house was delivered to Malkeet Singh at the time of registration of the sale deed as is evident from Ex.C5. Thus, Gurcharan Singh or his legal heirs including complainant were left with  no right title or interest in the said house and the electricity connection installed therein was certainly used by the purchaser after  24.2.2004. The Ops have produced a certificate issued by the SDO, Operation Sub Division, Nilokheri, according to which permanent disconnection of the said electricity connection was made on 14.12.2009 at Sr.No.71/2718.The defaulting amount was Rs.11338/- on 10.2.2010 and  Rs.11672/- on  2.4.2010 .The consumption of the  electricity was recorded in the meter upto November, 2005 and thereafter from January, 2006 to December, 2009 the premises remained locked. From this record of the Ops  it is emphatically clear that said electricity connection was used by purchaser Malkeet Singh after 24.2.2004. Therefore,  he is liable to pay the electricity bills.

8.                 The learned counsel for the Ops laid emphasis on the contention that electricity connection remained in the name of Gurcharan Singh,  the father of the complainant and the same was not got transferred in the name of purchaser Malkeet Singh.  No intimation regarding sale of the house  to Malkeet Singh was given to the OPs by the complainant or any other legal heir of Gurcharan Singh. It has further been argued that the complainant being the son of Gurcharan Singh in whose name electricity connection continued, was liable to pay the defaulting amount in respect of the said connection as per sale circular and the OPs rightly sought recovery of the same from him.

9.                 The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops cannot be accepted. No sales circular could be brought to the notice of this Forum by the Ops according to which recovery of the outstanding amount  in respect of connection existing in the name of the father of the complainant could be effected from the complainant  after sale of the house long  ago, particularly, in a case when  the purchaser had used that electricity connection after purchase of the house. The Ops have produced the copy of the sales circular U-63 of 2007, according to which the owner of the property is to be asked to deposit the defaulting amount,  because he is responsible for all the assets/liabilities. Therefore, as per the said instructions of the sales circular, the OPs could affect recovery from Malkeet Singh, who was occupying the house and using the electricity connection after purchase and not from the complainant, who had no concern with the said electricity connection after sale on 24.2.2004.  Consequently, the demand raised by the Ops from the complainant was not legally justified.

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.11855/-   raised in the bill Ex.C2 dated 27.2.2011 from the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the mental pain and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 04.12.2015.                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Suraj Kanwar   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: 04.12.2015.                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.