BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.364 of 2020.
Date of institution: 23.10.2020.
Date of decision:10.03.2021.
Jasbir Singh aged about 21 years, S/o Arun Kumar, R/o Gali No.2, Arjun Nagar, Cheeka Road, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- SDO ‘OP’ Sub Division, S/D No.1, UHBVN, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
- Managing Director, UHBVN, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the averments that the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection with the Op No.1 and deposited Rs.2950/- on 04.09.2020 vide receipt No.SUR29185602163 and completed all the formalities as per requirement of the Ops. It is alleged that the complainant visited the office of Ops several times and requested to install the domestic electricity connection but the Ops told the complainant that an amount is due towards the mother of complainant i.e. Rekha Rani wife of Arun Kumar on account of theft of electricity energy. It is further alleged that the mother of complainant had filed a civil suit No.1378 of 2017 against the Ops in Civil Court Kaithal and a decree was passed by learned Lower Court in favour of mother of complainant Rekha Rani. The Ops challenged the said decree in the court of ld. District Judge, Kaithal and the same has been dismissed. The complainant requested the Ops for issuing domestic electricity connection but the Ops did not release the electricity connection to the complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that on 01.07.2017 the electricity connection bearing account No.KZ-28/1887 was checked by the team members of the answering Ops and found direct theft of energy at the spot vide LL-1 No.04/805. The above-said connection was running in the name of Smt. Rekha Rani daughter of Sh. Satpal and the said Smt. Rekha Rani is a real mother of the present complainant. Accordingly, an order of assessment dt. 05.07.2017 of Rs.82,464/- and another notice of compounding dt. 05.07.2017 to the tune of Rs.10,000/- were duly sent to the mother of the complainant namely Smt. Rekha Rani by the Ops. The mother of the complainant was found using the energy dishonestly by committing direct theft as indicate in LL-1 bearing No.04/805 dt. 01.07.2017. On 18.07.2017, the Ops permanently disconnected the above-said connection on the basis of defaulting amount of Rs.92,464/-. The PDCO was effected on 31.08.2017. It is further stated that the Ops/Nigam have preferred a RSA against the judgment and decree passed by the lower court as-well-as first appellant court which bears No.525 of 2020 and is pending for 02.03.2021. It is further stated that on 20.02.2018, the very said premises of mother of complainant was checked 2nd time by the team members of answering Ops and found direct theft of energy at the spot vide LL-1 No.20/1013. The above-said facts indicate that the mother of complainant was indulged in the offence of direct theft of energy. This case was treated as non-consumer case because after PDCO, no electricity connection was at the premises in question. It is further stated that the complainant in collusion with his mother Smt. Rekha Rani has now applied for new domestic electricity connection (DS) in the premises which is still owned and possessed by Smt. Rekha Rani and as such, the complainant is neither owner nor he is a tenant in the premises in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R14 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has applied for the electricity connection online vide Annexure-C1/R11 and deposited the security amount of Rs.2950/- on 04.09.2020 but the electricity connection has been denied on the ground that there is outstanding amount of Rs.93,180/- pending against the account No.K228/1887 as per available ledger record as per report of CA as mentioned on the back of the application Annexure-R13. There are two questions involved in the present case. Whether the complainant has rightly applied the electricity connection in the premises owned by her mother namely Rekha Rani or not? It is an admitted fact that Smt. Rekha Rani is owner of said premises where the complainant has applied the electricity connection. Ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant is neither the tenant or legal occupation over the premises for which the new connection is sought and the complainant is also failed to produce the no dues certificate mentioned in Regulation 4.3.1 or in its absence undertaking to pay outstanding dues of the previous owner and in specific cases, certain other documents as detailed in Regulations 4.4.1(7) to 4.4.1 (11). Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get the new electricity connection in the premises of previous owner, whose connection has been disconnected due to non-payment. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant being a son has a legal occupancy over the premises for which the new connection is sought. He further drew our attention towards the judgment cited in 2011(4) CCC page 6 (SC) titled as Sri Chandu Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik & others and 2006(1) CPJ page 312 (Gujarat State Commission) titled as Gujarat Electricity Board & others Vs. Grahak Hit Surak Mandal & another, wherein it has been held that Fees paid for obtaining connection-Complainant prospective consumer. We are of the view that the complainant being a son has a legal right to apply the connection subject to filing the no objection certificate from his mother and file the indemnity bond etc. or undertaking to pay the outstanding dues of the previous owner.
Now the another question arises that whether the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount shown as per report Annexure-R12 and application for obtaining the electricity connection was cancelled due to outstanding amount of Rs.93,180/- in lieu of account No.K228/1887. It is proved on the file as per Annexure-R6 that the connection No.K228/1887 was disconnected vide PDCO No.55 dt. 18.07.2017 due to non-depositing the outstanding amount which was owned by his mother Smt. Rekha Rani. Admittedly, earlier the Ops have sent the demand notice to the previous owner Smt. Rekha Rani, the mother of complainant vide memo No.1034 dt. 05.07.2017 and LL-1 dt. 01.07.2017 as per Annexure-R1 because the theft was found and Ops have sent the notice and amount of Rs.82,464/- was assessed of the theft amount under Section 135 and amount of Rs.10,000/- was assessed 152 of Electricity Act, 2003 as per Annexure-R2 and Annexure-R3 as compounding fee against the owner Rekha Rani. It is also clear on the file that another theft was found in the same premises owned by Rekha Rani and LL-1 was prepared against the user namely Anoop Singh. It is also an admitted fact that Anoop Singh has deposited the assessment amount as-well-as compounding fees. It is also evident from the record that the notice of assessment of Rs.82,464/- and compounding fees of Rs.10,000/- were served to Rekah Rani, the mother of complainant, who has challenged the above-said assessment amount as-well-as compounding fee in Civil Court, Kaithal vide Civil Suit No.1378 decided on 29.04.2019 as per Annexure-C3. The above-said assessment of notice as-well-as compounding fee notice were set-aside by Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr.Div), Kaithal and the Ops have been not to recover the above-said amount as mentioned in the relief para. The Ops also filed the appeal against the said order and the same was dismissed vide Civil Appeal No.84 of 2019 decided on 31.10.2019 by the court of Sh. Naresh Katyal, District Judge, Kaithal as per Annexure-C4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that there is no liability to pay the outstanding amount shown against the previous owner and his application was wrongly rejected on this ground vide Annexure-R13 which is illegal, null and void. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the second appeal is pending in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as per Annexure-R14 and notice of motion for 02.03.2021 was issued and the appeal is still pending, so, the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount. In view of above facts, it is clear that the Civil Court as-well-as appellate court has quashed the notice of assessment of Rs.82,462/- and compounding fees of Rs.10,000/- and the Civil Court has passed the specific order against the Ops and they were restrained not to recover the above-said amount. We are of the further view that mere filing of the appeal does not tantamount to stay of the order of Civil Court as-well-as appellate court. In view of above-said facts and in the interest of justice, we direct the complainant to submit the indemnity bond regarding depositing the outstanding amount against his mother namely Smt. Rekha Rani in lieu of connection bearing account No.K228/1887 within 15 days, subject to acceptance of appeal by the court of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, then the complainant is bound to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest, if any. We further direct the complainant to file the no objection certificate from his mother Smt. Rekha Rani. After obtaining the indemnity bond from the complainant and no objection certificate from the mother of complainant as mentioned above, then the Ops are bound to release the electricity connection in the name of complainant within 15 days. The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the Ops cited in 2007(1) CCC page 578 (SC) titled as DHBVN Vs. M/s. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd.; 2009(1) CCC page 11 (SC) titled as Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others Vs. M/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & others; 2010(4) CCC page 1 (SC) titled as Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. M/s. Hanuman Rice Mills & others and 2011(2) ACJ page 476 (SC) titled as Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India & others are not disputed but the same are not helpful to the Ops as the facts of these facts are different from the instant case.
7. Thus, in view of above directions, the present complaint is hereby disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:10.03.2021.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
