SH. SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT
ORDER
25.08.2023
- A complaint filed by Sh. Sukhdev (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) against CEO TPDDL (hereinafter referred to as “OP”).
- It is stated that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he is using the electricity connection for livelihood only. It is stated that the complainant CA No.60011899303 with name of Kamlesh Sharma. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant purchased such property from Ms. Sushila and Sushila purchased from Mr. Kamlesh Sharma. It is further stated that due to financial problem the complainant not transferred the name on electricity connection and the complainant was paying electricity bills regularly of CA No. 60011899303. It is stated that the complainant was shocked when the OP send a fabricated bill of Rs. 103826/- in the months of November, 2018. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP demanding Rs. 102950.47/- of CA No. 60008872925.
- It is stated that thereafter complainant submit an application on 29.11.2018 but the official of OP threaten for disconnection of electricity supply. It is further stated that complainant visited several times at the office of respondent but fake and false assurance given every time and complainant is extremely disappointed at this time of respondent towards his customers. It is further stated that it is shocking that such behavior done by OP and despite uncounted several visits respondent failed to rectify the problem. The complainant also made many complaints personally but there is no proper response. Hence, present complaint filed seeking direction to the OP to remove the CA NO. 60008872925 charges Rs. 102950.47/- from complainant and pay compensation of 50 thousand for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant.
- OP filed detailed written statement and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable as there is no action against the complainant and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the registered consumer against the CA No. 60011899303/K.No. 42205155133 against which dispute has been raised is in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma whereas the complainant is Mr. Sukhdev. Therefore, as per section 2 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant does not false within the definition of complainant. It is further stated that the consumer for a constituted under the Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction to entertain only complaint filed by the consumer of electricity alleging any defect/ deficiency in supply of electricity and there is deficiency or defect of supply contended by complainant therefore present complaint case is not maintainable under section 2 (1) (c) (iii) consumer protection Act, 1986. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- The OP has stated the background of the case stating that complainant has disputed addition/adjustment o Rs. 1,02,779/- (principal amount of Rs. 45,776/- plus LPSC amount of Rs. 57,003/-) in his electricity connection CA No. 60011899303. It is further stated that the amount was on account of outstanding dues of electricity connection of CA No. 60008872925 (K.No. 42207022731) in connection of CA No. 60011899303 of complainant. Both the connections are registered in the name of same person Ms. Kamlesh Sharma. It is stated that electricity connection CA No. 60008872925 was applied by complainant under long term temporary usage on 02.05.2007. The complainant did not make payment of dues of this connection which resulted into accumulation of dues amounting to Rs. 1,02,779/- on account of outstanding dues the connection was disconnected and the meter was removed on 11.06.2012. The complainant at the time of applying named other connection CA No. 60011899303 as Guarantor connection and submitted the bill of this connection. The relevant documents filed on record.
- It is stated that since the complainant did not paid dues of electricity connection of CA no. 60008872925 therefore this amount was transferred to other connection CA No. 60011899303 (Guarantor Connection). It is stated that the amount was transferred in accordance with provisions of law after service of Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2018 for recovery of unpaid dues and copy of Show Cause Notice filed on record.
- On merit all the allegations made by complainant are denied. It is stated that electricity connection bearing no. CA No. 60011899303 is registered in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma at Baljeet Vihar, Nithari Extension, Delhi-110041 for sanctioned load of 1 KW for domestic light. The connection was energized on 31.08.2016 and statement of account filed on record.
- It is stated that complainant never informed these facts and never applied for change of registered consumer. It is further stated that the dues of inactive electricity connection CA No. 60008872925 pertains to same premises in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma and of the same premises being guarantor connection therefore, dues were transferred. The dues are legally recoverable from the complainant Sh. Sukhdev. It is further stated that now the dues have increased to Rs. 1,06,633/-. It is stated that no application dated 29.11.2018 received by OP at the office. It is stated that no alleged assurance were given to the complainant by officials of OP. It is stated that there is no deficiency of supply, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations. It is stated that complainant purchased the property since 2007 and regularly paid the bill of CA NO. 60011899303. It is stated that since the purchase of house till date there was no tamper, but OP without any reason demanding Rs. 1,03,826/- in arbitrary manner after transferring the dues of CA NO. 60008872925 which is highly illegal as it pertains to Ms. Kamlesh Sharma which was installed in some other property. It is further stated that OP should seize the property where alleged CA NO. 60008872925 and meter were installed rather the officials of OP and even new electricity meter installed in the premises. The complainant reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint.
- Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint.
- Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of Shelly Pruthi and reiterated the contents of the WS and relied on documents regarding release of connection exhibit DW-4A, Show Cause Notice exhibit DW-B and statement of account CA No. 60011899303 DW-C.
- Written arguments filed by OP along with supporting documents. However, complainant has not filed written arguments.
- We have heard complainant in person and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for TPDDL and perused the record.
14. The law is well settled on the proposition of law with regard to transfer of dues by OP by our own Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of Delhi which is as under:
In the case of Mrs. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs.NDPL 129 (2006) DLT 213 Division Bench of Hon’ble High court discussed the powers vested in DERA and DERC which are reproduced hereunder:-
14.In our opinion, there is no distinction between the purchaser of a premises who was aware that there were outstanding electricity dues against the previous owner/tenant, and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the new owner/occupant before supply can be continued/restored. This is because of the statutory provision contained in Clause 2 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply which has been quoted above.
15.In our opinion, whenever a person purchases a property, it is his duty to find out whether there are outstanding electricity dues in relation to the premises or not, and he cannot be allowed to say later that he was unaware of the fact that there were electricity dues of the previous owner/tenant.
16.In view of the General Condition of Supply, it is the duty of the new owner/occupant to himself make enquiries and find out whether there was such dues or not. The General conditions of Supply are statutory in nature (being delegated legislation), and hence the question of bonafide or malafide does not arise, and in either case the new owner/occupant of the premises has to pay the dues against the previous owner/tenant, Page1121 if he wishes the electricity supply to be continued/restored.
17.It is obvious that he purpose of framing Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply was that many persons against whom there were huge electricity dues tried to avoid payment of the same by selling/transferring the property, and in this way the electricity department/electricity company could not recover its dues. In our opinion, there is no illegality or unconstitutionality in sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the General Condition of Supply.
18. It may be mentioned in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P State Electricity Board AIR 1998 4 SSC 1715, the Supreme Court took the view that even in the absence of a contract the terms and conditions of supply will be governed by the statutory Regulations and they will applicable to the consumers who will be bound by them.
19.Under Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply contained in the tariff order 1997-98 and 2001-02 which has been framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, it has been specifically stated that supply of electricity is subject to the condition that the applicant deposits development charge, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including outstanding dues against the premises and/or disconnected connection.
20. The above Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply has been framed under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as well as Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and hence is a piece of delegated legislation.
21.The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has struck down Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply, With respect to him, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the said Clause as it comes within the purview of the Tariff Order framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. We do not agree that the General Conditions of Supply required approval of the State Legislature under the proviso to Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as in our opinion they are not Regulations made under Section 79.
22. We agree with the learned Single Judge who has disposed of Writ Petition (c) No. 3532/2003 Ms. Madhu Garg v. North Delhi Power Ltd. by directing her to pay the dues for the electricity consumer by one Jathedar Richpal Singh. However, as already observed above, even is she was unaware she has to pay the outstanding dues.
- . In our opinion, this is not the correct position of the law. The new owner/occupant, whether he was a heir or successor or not, has to paythe outstanding dues if he wants continuation/restoration of the electricity connection. Further, notice of existence of arrears is not the requirement in the Clause2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of the supply. Aslo, there is no requirement for the licensee to first initiate recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against the old consumer before disconnecting the supply. As observed by the Supreme Court in Swastic Industries Vs. MSEB (vide para 5):-
Page 1123 it would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board. Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the Suit and the intimation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges.
27. In our opinion, an interpretation of the law which furthers the preservation and protection of public property ought to be adopted. If arrears of electricity charges outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with a contractual claims of damages, it would encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or other in respect of such arrears and evade the consequences of non-payment of electricity charges viz. disconnection/non-resumption of supply.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Vs. M/S Srigdhaa Beverages dated 1st June, 2020 has held as under:-
15. In our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges, which needs to be emphasized:
A. That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910) and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.
16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which has emerged, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside while opining that appellant No.1 would be well within its right to demand the arrears due of the last owner, from the respondent-purchaser.
15. The full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, in a recent case titled as K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2109-2110 of 2004 decided on 19.05.2023 alongwith several other Civil appeals laid down the principle of law as under:
- Conclusions
328. The conclusions are summarised below:
a. the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities;
c. For an application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’ the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the PART I premises are difference, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection;
d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character;
e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners;
f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act;
g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge;
h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.
- Now applying the principle of law in the present case the complainant admitted that he has purchased the property from Ms. Sushila and Sushila purchased from Ms. Kamlesh Sharma. He has filed photocopy of agreement to sell and purchase between one Mr. Rishipal and Ms Kamlesh Sharma which is undated, affidavit of Mr. Rishipal, objection letter in favor of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma and receipt of Rs.25,000/-. The dates are not clear, however, stamp is of notary public dated February but the year is not readable. The complainant filed the photocopy of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt of Rs.30,000/-, possession letter and will filed executed by Ms. Kamlesh Devi in favor of Ms. Sushila dated 16.03.2007. However, no document filed by complainant that he has purchased the property from Ms. Sushila.
- OP filed documents i.e. the application for connection of electricity filed by Ms.Kamlesh Sharma supported with electricity bill election card CA NO. 60008872925 as per documents this electricity connection was energized on 31.08.2006 and disconnected on 22.05.2012. The OP further filed supporting documents i.e. the statement of account of this connection in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma showing the outstanding dues. OP further filed the show cause notice dated 14.06.2018 addressed to Ms. Kamlesh Sharma of CA No. 60011899303 of house No. 115-A, Kh.No. 16/11, Ground floor, Nothari which was served as per postal receipt. The notice dated 14.06.2018 specifically mentioned that a short term temporary connection was issued and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma was the guarantor and her dues which were remained unpaid of CA No. 6008872925. It is further mentioned that at the time of release of long term temporary connection CA No. 6008872925 in declaration of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma mentioned as guarantor of CA No. 60011899303
- As per the above discussed circumstances the complainant Mr. Sukhdev steps into the shoes of Ms. Kamal Sharma however, no documentary filed on record that he has purchased the property from Ms. Sushila. However, he admitted he has been using the electricity from CA No. 60011899303 which is in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma. It is admitted on record that he never applied for change of name or new connection after purchasing the property as alleged from Ms. Sushila. The principle of law discussed here in above which established that the dues of electricity are against the property and whosoever becomes the owner of the property is liable to pay the statutory dues on the property.
- Hence, complainant who claim to the purchaser of the property is liable to pay the statutory dues of electricity connection of the previous owners. The OP complied the all provisions before taking action of disconnection against the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that all the documents filed by complainant shows that the electricity connection is in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma and in the absence of any documentary proof of purchasing the property as alleged by the complainant he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant miserably failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of OP.
- On the basis of above observations and discussion complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
- Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 25.08.2023.
SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA RAJESH
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
