Haryana

Panchkula

CC/201/2015

karamjit singh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ANIRUDH KUSH.

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No.	:	201 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	09.03.2016

 

Karamjit Singh, aged 47 years, s/o Sh.Raunki Ram, R/o H.No.603, Block II, VPO Barwala, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Oficer, Barwala, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                          ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor Anand, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Anirudh Kush, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Y.P.Rana, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Op with the averments that he has an electric connection bearing a/c No.NB13-1951-Y for domestic supply having sanctioned load of 1.0 KW and paying the electricity bills regularly. The Op issued an electricity bill of Rs.22,394/- vide bill No.02031 dated 12.09.2015 in which an amount of Rs.20,968/- showed as arrears. The complainant requested the OP to correct the bill and showed them earlier bills being paid him, therefore, there was no arrear in his account. The officials of Op told the complainant that the arrear of his brother’s electricity bill has been shown in the bill of complainant as his brother namely Som Nath has failed to pay the said bill. The brother of the complainant was having electricity connection bearing account No.NB13/1272F-N and he has already been died in the month of June, 2014. The brother of the complainant was residing separately from the complainant. The complainant visited several times to the office of OP but they did not pay any heed and nor corrected the bill. The complainant further requested the Op to accept the current bill but the Op flatly refused to accept the same and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in case the bill was not deposited. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant is the consumer of the Op under account No.NB13-1951-Y. It is further submitted that on the same premises an electricity connection bearing account No.NB13/1272 was also installed in the name of Som Nath s/o Sh.Raunki Ram i.e. brother of the complainant which was disconnected vide PDCO No.59/5482 dated 29.09.2010 on defaulting amount of Rs.22,169/-. It is submitted that the complainant has taken an another connection by playing trick on the same premises and the defaulting amount of Rs.22,169/- was transferred to the account No.NB13/1951 of the complainant from the account of Som Nath bearing account No.13/1271 as per the Sale Circular of the Nigam vide Sale Circular No.U03/2013. It is submitted that as per Sale Circular, the Op could recover the default amount from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant did not deposit the bill as per rule of the Nigam, if the complainant did not deposit the bill, the Op would disconnect the electric connection. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the Op has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the Op has reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. We have gone through the file and documents placed on record.
6. After going through the material available on the case file it is ample clear that meter bearing account No.NB13/1272 was installed in the name of Som Nath brother of the complainant. As per version of the OP said connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.59/5482 dated 29.09.2010 as the brother of the complainant committed default in making the payment of Rs.22169/- qua the consumption of electricity. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is having different electricity connection bearing No.NB13-1951-Y.  The OP has come with the plea that the complainant had obtained the said electricity by playing trick on the same premises where the meter in the name of his brother was installed.  In order to strengthen the arguments learned counsel for the OP has drawn the attention of this Forum towards Annexure R1 i.e. Sales Circular No.U-03/2013. In this document in the opening lines of para (b) it has been mentioned that Reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Nigam unless these are cleared in advance.  It is strange that on one hand the OP is relying upon Sales Circular No.U-03/2013 and on the other hand it violates its own circular. Moreover, in the present case it is established that the complainant is/was using another meter account number and his brother was using electricity through another account.   Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case titled as Sanjay Balvantrai Desai & others Vs. Dakshin Gujrat Vij Company Limited and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil)  has held that  The consumer is held to be a defaulter and not any premises where the electricity is supplied to such consumer as provided in Sections 56 and 126 of the Act.  The complainant has taken specific plea that his brother was residing separately from him but despite that the OP is bent upon the recover the electricity dues which was to be recovered from his brother. The Op has failed to rebut this plea and even did not lead any evidence to satisfy this Forum that the complainant and his brother was residing together at the same address where the electricity connection in the name of his brother was installed. Had it been so then it was for the OP to take appropriate action against the defaulting officials but the OP has not taken any action against any official who released the electricity connection on the same premises by violating the circular of OP. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case titled as Uniscans and Sonics Limited Vs. M.P.Electricity Board and others 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) has held that Board has no power to make recovery of the electricity dues of the sister concerns of the petitioner-consumer.  In this judgment Hon’ble Apex Court by relying upon the judgment passed in case titled as Isha Marbles V.Bihar State Electricity Board and another (1995) 2 SCC 648 has further held that the Electricity Board cannot seek any enforcement of contractual liability against the third party.  In this present case the brother of the complainant is/was third party and therefore, the Nigam cannot ask the complainant to pay the electricity dues of his brother. The OP has not come with the plea that the complainant is not making the payment of charges, whatsoever, due from him rather the defence is that it is empowered to make recovery of the dues of the third party i.e. brother of the complainant. The present case is fully covered under the law laid down in Isha Marbles V.Bihar State Electricity Board and another (1995) 2 SCC 648,  therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the transfer of arrears qua the separate electricity meter in the account/bill of the complainant is illegal and against the settled principle of law. Moreover, it is admitted that the electricity connection of the brother of the complainant was disconnected on 29.09.2010 due to non-payment of Rs.22169/- The said arrear was first time has been shown in the  bill issued on 12.09.2015 of the complainant after a period of 5 years.  The Hon’ble National Commission in case Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Pophate Nursing Home & another, 1986-95 Consumer 497 (NS) has held that recovery of arrears for more than two years would be barred by limitation. Hence, the complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and the demand/transfer of arrears of the dues in the account of the complainant is hereby declared null and void and is hereby set aside. The Op is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

09.03.2016      S.P.Attri               Anita Kapoor          Dharam Pal

                             Member                Member                     President

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                     Dharam Pal

                                                              President