Haryana

StateCommission

A/861/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MURTI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.BAIRAGI

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.861 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 09.10.2015

Date of Decision: 22.03.2017

 

AEE UHBVN City Sub Division, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Murti Devi widow of Raj Kumar, R/o Village Mudlana, Distt.Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Bairagi, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.S.K.Malik, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It alleged by the complainant that she was consuming electricity through connection No.GU-ii-0839Y. She was regularly paying the electricity bills to Opposite Party (O.P.).  In the year 2010, O.P demanded Rs.8,000/- from her, which was not correct, but, were deposited. Vide bill dated 18.08.2014 Rs.33470/- were again demanded by O.P. which was also  wrong and illegal.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that electric connection was in the name of Raj Kumar husband of complainant. Legal heirs of Raj Kumar did not move any application to change the name of consumer in their favour, so complainant was not consumer.  An amount of Rs.24,823/- was still outstanding against Raj Kumar husband of complainant.  He was found committing theft of electric energy at the time of inspection on 22.10.2010 and thereafter Rs.12,457/-  were assessed as electricity charges and Rs.8000/- as compounding amount. Raj Kumar deposited above-said amount, but, amount of Rs.12,457/- could not be debited in his account.  Again on 16.10.2011 husband of complainant was found committing theft of electric energy. After assessment Rs.22,181/- were demanded for consumption of electricity and Rs.8000/- as compounding fee. Raj Kumar did not deposit that amount and bill of Rs.33,470/- was issued in the month of August 2014 including amount of theft of energy. So above said bill was legal and valid one and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) disposed off complaint vide impugned order dated 14.08.2015 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to deduct Rs.22181/- from Rs.33470/- and for the balance amount, it is directed to the respondent to issue fresh bill to the complainant.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-(appellant) has preferred this appeal. 

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that amount of Rs.33,470/- was illegally imposed upon in this case. The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned and based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. He placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in civil appeal No.5466 of 2012 titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad decided on 01.07.2013. 

8.      This argument is of no avail. In U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed Sections 126, 135 to 140 and Section 153 of Electricity Act and not the purpose of using electricity.  It is specifically opined therein that if the case is pertaining to theft of electricity and penalty etc. are imposed as provided under section 126 of the Electricity Act then Consumer fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  After the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case nothing has been left to be discussed. It is well settled proposition of law that judgement without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference to this effect can be made to the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

9.      Resultantly impugned order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the District forum is set aside and appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

 

March 22nd, 2017

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.