BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.178/17.
Date of instt.: 04.07.2017.
Date of Decision: 21.08.2017.
Neha age 25 years, wife of Amit Kumar, R/o Indira Colony, Kalayat.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, Utar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Kalayat.
- Utar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she applied for domestic electricity connection and deposited Rs.2750/- on 03.04.2017 vide receipt No.183 and completed all the formalities as per the 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 did not do so. It is further alleged that the Op No.1 has written a letter to the complainant vide memo No.778 dt. 19.04.2017 in which Rs.1,56,811/- were shown due against the father-in-law of complainant i.e. Inder son of Harikesh and Rs.14,425/- were shown due against the husband of complainant i.e. Amit Kumat son of Inder Singh. It is further alleged that after receiving the above-said letter, the husband of complainant deposited the above-said amount of Rs.14,425/- with the Ops which were due against the husband of complainant but the Ops are adamant to get deposit the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- due against father-in-law of complainant for which the complainant is not responsible. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. The true facts are that the complainant has applied for domestic electricity connection with the Ops and deposited Rs.2750/- on 03.04.2017 and thereafter, the lineman of answering Ops visited the premises of complainant for spot verification and as per physical inspection and office record of the answering Ops, the said premises was found defaulting as the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- were found due towards Inder son of Harikesh i.e. father-in-law of complainant and Rs.14,425/- were found due towards Amit son of Inder i.e. husband of complainant; that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.14,425/- but miserably failed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- which were due towards the father-in-law of complainant; that the application moved by the complainant to avail the domestic connection in the defaulting premises was rightly rejected by the answering Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C4 and closed evidence on 31.07.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 08.08.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection and deposited Rs.2750/- on 03.04.2017 vide receipt No.183 and completed all the formalities as per the requirement of the Ops. He further argued that the complainant visited the office of Ops several times and requested to install the domestic electricity connection but the Ops did not do so. He further argued that the Op No.1 has written a letter to the complainant vide memo No.778 dt. 19.04.2017 in which Rs.1,56,811/- were shown due against the father-in-law of complainant i.e. Inder son of Harikesh and Rs.14,425/- were shown due against the husband of complainant i.e. Amit Kumat son of Inder Singh. He further argued that after receiving the above-said letter, the husband of complainant deposited the above-said amount of Rs.14,425/- with the Ops which were due against the husband of complainant but the Ops are adamant to get deposit the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- due against father-in-law of complainant for which the complainant is not responsible. Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted two authorities cited in 2016(4) Law Herala page 3044 (P & H High Court) titled as UHBVN Vs. Daulat Ram & another and 2011(2) CCC page 556 (Gujarat High Court) titled as Abhisar Developers Vs. Torrent Power Ltd. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.14,425/- but miserably failed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- which were due towards the father-in-law of complainant. He further argued that the application moved by the complainant to avail the domestic connection in the defaulting premises was rightly rejected by the answering Ops.
6. From the pleadings and the evidence available on the file, we found that the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection and deposited the requisite security of Rs.2750/- on 03.04.2017. The Ops did not issue the electric connection to the complainant on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- were found due towards Inder son of Harikesh i.e. father-in-law of the complainant and Rs.14,425/- were shown due against the husband of complainant i.e. Amit Kumat son of Inder Singh. The Ops have admitted in the reply that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.14,425/- but miserably failed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- which were due towards the father-in-law of complainant. The Ops have demanded the outstanding amount of Rs.1,56,811/- pending against some other connection pertains to father-in-law of complainant. Moreover, the Ops have not produced any statutory rules or circular that the arrears due in regard to supply of the electricity made to the premises when it was occupation of the previous owner. In the absence of any such term or rule, the claim relating to the previous owner cannot be enforced against the complainant. After careful perusal of record available on the file, we are of the considered view that the Ops are not liable to charge the arrear of some other connection pertaining to father-in-law of complainant namely Inder son of Harikesh. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority reported as Abhisar Developers Vs. Torrent Power Ltd., 2011(2) CCC page 556 decided by Gujarat High Court, wherein it has been held that Electricity-Arrears of previous owner/occupier-Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property-Transferee of premises or a subsequent occupant of premises cannot be made liable for the dues of his predecessor in title or possession-Restoration of electricity connection or a new connection, after clearing of arrears of previous owner/occupant can be insisted only when statutory rules or terms so provide. The said authority is fully applicable to the present case. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops have not released the domestic electricity connection on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,56,811/- is due against the father-in-law of complainant, for which the complainant is not responsible. Hence, the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to issue the domestic electricity connection to the complainant immediately, subject to fulfillment of all the formalities as required by the Ops. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. However, the Ops are at liberty to recover Rs.1,56,811/- from Inder s/o Harikesh, father-in-law of complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.08.2017. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
