Haryana

Ambala

CC/365/2023

URMILA DEVI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SARVJEET SINGH

23 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	365 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	22.12.2023
Date of decision	:	23.07.2024

Urmila Devi, aged about 64 years, wife of Sh. R.K. Singhal, resident of H.No.420, Sector-04, HUDA, Naraingarh.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Executive Engineer, Operation Division UHBVN, Naraingarh, Ambala.

 

2. SDO Operation, Sub-Division UHBVN, Naraingarh.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                

 

Present:      Shri Saravjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the Complainant. 

                    Defence of the OPs struck off.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To recall the Notice/Memo No.5305 dated 18.12.2023, whereby the complainant has been wrongly and illegally asked to pay a Rs.2,89,489/-.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, deprivation and harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.                                                                                                                                                                     OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant namely Sh. Ram Kumar Singhal was the owner of the house measuring 00 Kanal 05 Marla being 5/45th share of total land measuring 02 Kanal 05 Marla, comprised in Khasra Nos.18//8/1/2(2-5), situated within the revenue estate of Naraingarh, H.B. No.88, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. In the said house an electricity connection of domestic supply category stood installed in the name of the husband of the complainant vide A/c No.6478581000. The said house was sold by the husband of the complainant on 17.11.2011 to Smt. Gurdeep Kaur wife of Sh. Lashkar Singh son of Sh. Balkar Singh, resident of House Bhure Wala, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, vide. Sale Deed bearing No.2520/1 dated 17.11.2011. At the time of the sale, the electricity connection vide above mentioned account number stood installed in the said house and nothing was outstanding to be paid against the above mentioned electricity connection by the complainant on account of electricity dues. After 17.11.2011 i.e. the date of sale, the liability to pay the electricity dues and every kind of charges, penalties etc. in connection with use of electricity by the new owner, against said electricity connection, rested with the new owner i.e. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur. The complainant was surprised to receive from the OP No.2, a Memo No.5305 dated 18.12.2023 whereby the complainant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,89,489/ within a period of 07 days, failing which the said amount would be transferred to the electricity connection bearing A/c No.9113481000 which is in the name of complainant and is installed in H.No.420, Sector-04, HUDA, Naraingarh, Ambala. As per Memo No.5305 dated 18.12.2023, the said amount of Rs.2,89,489/- is outstanding against electricity connection bearing A/c No.6478581000 installed in the above mentioned house which was sold by the husband of the complainant to Smt. Gurdeep Kaur. On receipt of above mentioned notice/memo, the complainant immediately contacted OP No.2 and explained that the complainant was not liable to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs.2,89,489/- as the house in which the electricity connection bearing A/c No.6478581000 stood installed had already been sold by the husband of the complainant and no electricity was consumed by the complainant or her husband against the said electricity connection since the date of sale i.e. 17.11.2011 but OP No.2 did not accede to the request of the complainant and refused to recall the said notice and further threatened the complainant with disconnection of electricity connection bearing A/c No.9113481000 after transferring the amount in the said electricity connection. Thereafter, the complainant made enquiries and it transpired to the knowledge of complainant that at present the house in which the electricity connection bearing A/c No.6478581000 stood installed, is owned by Smt. Subhash Rani wife of Sh. Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. C.L. Kumar and Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. C.L. Kumar son of Sh. Sadhu Ram. The complainant requested the current owners to pay the above mentioned dues as the liability to pay the same has accrued during the period in which the ownership of said house was held by them, but the current owners expressed their financial inability to pay the same. By raising the demand of Rs.2,89,489/- from the complainant, the OP No.2 has clearly violated the instructions of OP No.1 i.e. UHBVNL and as such OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in providing service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and they were directed to file their written version and evidence but they failed to do, as a result of which, their defence was struck of, vide order dated 18.03.2024
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by raising demand of Rs.2,89,489/-  vide letter dated 18.12.2023, Annexure C-1, despite the fact the house in question had been sold by her husband vide sale deed sale deed dated 17.11.2011, Annexure C-2 to Smt.Gurdeep Kaur; electricity connection bearing No.6478581000 is no more being utilized either by her husband or by the complainant; nor the said connection stands in the name of the complainant; the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
7.           It may be stated here that perusal of sale deed dated 17.11.2011, Annexure C-2 reveals that house in question, wherein the electricity meter in dispute i.e. connection bearing No.6478581000 was installed in the name of Sh.Ram Kumar Singhal i.e. the husband of the complainant, had been sold by him to one Smt.Gurdeep Kaur wife of Sh.Lakshar Singh.
8.           In the complaint, the  complainant  has raised number of contentions that the house in question had been sold by her husband vide sale deed dated 17.11.2011, Annexure C-2 to Smt.Gurdeep Kaur; that electricity connection bearing No.6478581000 is no more being utilized either by her husband or by the complainant and after the date of sale i.e 17.11.2011, the liability to pay the electricity dues and every kind of charges and penalty etc. in connection with use of electricity by the new owner, against the said electricity connection rested with the new owner i.e Smt Gurdeep kaur and that any alleged pending bills cannot be in any manner  raised against the complainant because the electrify connection in question was never in her name. It is significant to mention here that despite raising material contentions against the OPs by the complainant, the OPs preferred not to file any written version and evidence to rebut the same. Under these circumstances, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that the OPs did not want to say anything against the contentions and pleas raised by the complainant.
9.           To our mind also, once the house in question had been sold by husband of the complainant vide sale deed dated 17.11.2011, Annexure C-2 to Smt.Gurdeep Kaur, thereafter, how can the OPs recover  bills under the electricity connection bearing No.6478581000 and that too from  the complainant under different electricity bearing no.9113481000, who was neither the owner of the house in question nor said the electricity connection bearing No.6478581000 was issued in her name. Moreover, from the perusal of Section 56(2) of electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:-

                    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

          It is clear that the said demand raised by the OPs is in violation of 56 (2) of the electricity Act. In the case of Ravish Kumar Vs. SDO Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2018(3) CLT-497, the Hon’ble State Commission Haryana has held that as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 certainly the opposite parties were not entitled to recover any amount regarding consumption of electricity or penalty etc., two years prior to the date of raising demand of the amount and informing the consumer regarding amount due towards him, the amount which has been claimed regarding the period two years prior to the date of raising demand, cannot be recovered from complainant being barred by limitation.

10.           In light of the above, in the present case also, the OPs were wrong in raising the demand of Rs.2,89,489/-, and is liable to withdraw the demand notice dated 18.12.2023. OPs are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her. They are also liable to pay the litigation expenses, to the complainant.  
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-
    1. To withdraw the demand notice dated 18.12.2023.
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

   Announced:- 23.07.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President