IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision: 03.03.2009



Appeal No. FA-07/624

(Arising out of Order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No. 805/06)





BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. … Appellant

Punjabi Bagh West, Through

New Delhi-110026. Mr. J.S. Lamba,

Advocate



Versus



Vijay Kumar … Respondent

27/35,

Punjabi Bagh West,

New Delhi-110026.





CORAM:



Justice J.D. Kapoor … President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member





1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?





Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)



1. Respondent became tenant in the 2nd floor of the premises, Punjabi Bagh West. He applied for installation of a new meter connection which was declined because of the non-payment of the outstanding dues against the previous bills. Consequently, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

2. Vide impugned order dated 23.06.07, the District Forum allowed the complaint by holding the conduct of the appellant as deficiency in service and gave direction to the appellant to sanction a new connection as applied for on depositing requisite fee and complying with other commercial formalities. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the respondent, in brief, was that he is an authorized legal tenant in the premises 27/35, 2nd floor, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi that at the time of tenancy, a tenancy agreement was executed between him and the owner-landlord Sh. Satish Khera, that he applied for a new domestic connection to the 2nd floor of the above premises and completed requisite commercial formalities(Annexure A-1), that despite passing over of long period of about 4 months since the date of application i.e. 15.07.06, no action was initiated by the appellant in processing the applied electricity connection by the respondent which amounts to blatant deficiency in service on the part of appellant and hence, this complaint was filed for directions to appellant install a new meter connection in the above premises with the direction to appellant to pay compensation as prayed.

4. In reply, the appellant pleaded that the complaint was without any cause of action and has been filed with a view to avoid payment of the dues pending against the premises details of which are given in para-2 of the reply. The dues are shown against Sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Ratan Chand towards electricity connection in respect of 2nd floor of the premises. It was pleaded that completion of commercial formalities includes payment of all the pending dues and since the pending dues against the 2nd floor of the premises in the name of sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Ratan Chand are not being paid, the electricity connection cannot be given to the respondent.

5. The perusal of the record shows that vide rent agreement, the respondent became tenant of owner-landlord in respect of 2nd floor of the premises. The said owner-landlord has also filed a suit against one Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Sahni for specific performance. A copy of agreement of sale deed was also produced before the District Forum. The agreement specifically provided that the vacant possession of the premises has been given to the respondent. It was a registered document. The premises was sold to Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Sahni by Shanti Swaroop through his Attorney.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the respondent was a tenant of 2nd floor of the premises and as such he took the possession being a tenant and is not liable to pay the dues, if any, against the 2nd floor of the premises of the property which were due against Sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Ratan Chand.

7. In identical cases in Appeal No. 336/06 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Bijender Singh was so held by this Commission wherein the judgment of the High Court delivered in Madhu Garg Vs. NDPL was considered and reliance was placed on the judgmentof Supreme Court in Isha Marbles etc. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr.(SC) 1(1995) BC 259 (SC). Appellant was directed to sanction the new electricity connection. The observations of Supreme Court are as under :-

“There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the agency/board. The board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party.”

8. Decision of Supreme Court reported in (2004) V AD (SC) 470 Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Inns. Pvt. And Ors. wherein Isha Marble’s case was followed is also to the same effect. So much so, the provisions of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 also provide that the charges are recoverable from the person who has consumed the electricity of the premises, if at all.

9. In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

10. The impugned order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.



11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

13. Announced on 3rd day of March, 2009.