Haryana

Ambala

CC/358/2010

NANAK CHAND S/O MEHAR CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SARVESH GUPTA

01 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.358 of 2010

Date of Institution: 03.08.2010.

Date of Decision: 01/05/2015

Nanak Chand son of Shri Mehar Chand resident of Ward No.12, Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.                                                                               

……Complainant.        

 

Versus

1.         Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhavan, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

2.         SDO/AEE ‘OP’ Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                                                                              ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SMT. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Sarvesh Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs.

ORDER.

1.                     Present complaint under Section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he purchased a plot measuring 5 Marlas situated at Raipur Viran, Naraingarh from its owner Pankaj Aggarwal vide sale deed No.3726 dated 25.01.2005 and applied for a domestic connection on the said premises which the Ops issued vide connection bearing No.NN19/1272N-V and since then the complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly.  But the complainant was surprised when he received a bill for the months of 28.12.2009 to 28.02.2010 payable on 08.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.14198/-, so the complainant approached the OP No.2 and requested  to check the said bill.  The official of the OP admitted their mistake in sending the wrong bill which was corrected and complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.109/-.  Thereafter, the complainant again received a bill for the months of 28.02.2010 to 28.04.2010 payable on 09.06.2010 amounting to Rs.26338/- and the complainant again approached the OP No.2 and the bill was again  corrected and complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.127/- which the complainant deposited vide receipt No.29 dated 10.06.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant again received a bill for the month of April 2010 to June 2010 payable on 11.08.2010 amounting to Rs.14158/- and the complainant again approached the OP but  he did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant.   Hence, the complainant aggrieved by the said act of the OPs, filed the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of  the complaint and  the complainant is required to pay a sum of Rs.13,106/- as outstanding amount against the electricity connection bearing No.19/228 which was in the name of one Kashmiri who was tenant in the house owned by Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal.  Later on the premises was vacated by Kashmiri without paying the outstanding amount of electricity and the said premises was purchased by complainant and got installed new electricity connection No.NN19/1272 in it in his name.  Initially, the amount was wrongly transferred to account No.NN19/1271 which is in the name of Shri Balkar Singh who is real brother of the complainant and thereafter the mistake was rectified and the amount was transferred to the account of complainant whose electricity connection exists in the same premises against which aforesaid sum of Rs.13,106/- is still outstanding. It has been further urged  by the Ops that aforesaid amount has been transferred to the account of complainant as per the provisions of Sale Circular No.U-63/2007. On merits, it has been denied that OP committed any fault in preparation of calculation of the amount of bills rather the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.26338/- till date after application of surcharge thereupon.   In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                     In evidence, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant  whereas on the other hand, the counsel for Ops  has tendered affidavit Annexure RX  alongwith documents  Annexures  R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.     

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.  Counsel for the complainant has argued that an electricity connection bearing account no.NN19/1272N-V is installed in the name of complainant and he is regularly paying the electricity bills for the said connection but  the premises where the said connection is installed was purchased by complainant from Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal on 25.01.2005 vide sale deed No.3726 and   the Ops imposed a sum of Rs.13106/- upon the complainant illegally  in bill no.1772 dated 23.05.2010 on  the very ground that an amount of Rs.13106/- was outstanding against this premises prior to purchase of the same by the complainant because the tenant of this premises Sh. Kashmiri Lal did not deposit the abovesaid amount and  now the complainant cannot be burdened with the alleged bills as per law/rules.  Further to strengthen his version, counsel for the complainant relied upon the case law reported in CPJ 2011(2) Pg. 378 titled as SDO, DHBNVL & Anr. Vs. Saroj Devi decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkual wherein it has been held that “Billing dispute-Previous owner-Forum allowed complaint.  Bill in question relates to the period when complainant was not owner of house and complainant cannot be burdened with impugned bill-Ops at liberty to recover due amount from previous owner of house.”  And  another case law titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rajji Bai, reported in 2009(1)CLT Pg. 526 ( State Commission, Haryana) wherein it has been held by our State Commission that “Demand raised by Ops after two years on the basis of objection raised by the audit party is barred  in view of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003.   

                        On the other hand, counsel for the Ops vehemently argued that the complainant is liable to pay the amount in question because an amount of Rs.13106/- was outstanding against the electricity connection bearing No.19/228 which was in the name of Kashmiri who was tenant in the said premises and  later on  he vacated the said premises without paying the said outstanding amount.  Therefore, the complainant is liable to bear the liabilities of the electricity connection installed in the same premises as per their Sales Circular No.U-63/2007.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is undisputed that the complainant had purchased the house in question on 25.01.2005 from one  Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal where the aforesaid electricity connection bearing No.19/228 was installed.  It is also not disputed that the bill in question relates to the period prior to  25.01.2005, when the complainant was not the owner of the house and it is also a settled proposition of law that the Ops cannot debit any amount in the account of the consumer/complainant after a period of two years as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that “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.” Besides it, the case laws reported in CPJ 2011(2) Pg. 378 and 2009(1)CLT Pg. 526 (supra)  submitted  by the counsel for complainant  are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

                        So, in view of the discussion  and case laws referred above,  we are of the confirmed view that the complainant  is not legally liable  to pay the amount of Rs.13106/- or so on after application of surcharge thereupon  imposed by OP in the Billing Account of complainant bearing No.NN19/1272N-V. However, the Ops are at liberty to recover the due amount from its previous owner/guarantor of the electricity connection installed in the premises in question in accordance with rules.  Further, if any amount has already been deposited by the complainant qua the alleged amount of Rs.13106/- imposed in bill No.1772 dated 13.05.2010 or so on after application of surcharge etc.  thereupon,  the same be also refunded to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.  Besides it, the complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc. Complaint is allowed accordingly. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copies or order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.         

 

ANNOUNCED:01/05/2015        

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                        (A.K. SARDANA)

                      PRESIDENT            

                                                                                                Sd/-

    (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                             MEMBER        

                    Sd/-

         (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                         MEMBER