BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.193 of 2020.
Date of institution: 07.07.2020.
Date of decision:28.08.2020.
Ramesh son of late Sh. Ram Chander, resident of Village Kailram, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, Operation Divn., UHBVN Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary/M.D.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that the father of complainant namely Sh. Ram Chander (since deceased) was having an electric tubewell connection bearing account No.DD04-1560. After the death of his father, the complainant was using the above-said electric connection and has been paying the electricity bills regularly. The said electric connection was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016 due to non-payment of Rs.37,361/-. It is further alleged that on 02.05.2019 the complainant deposited PDCO amount of Rs.38,900/- with the Ops and thereafter on 08.06.2020 deposited the balance PDCO amount of Rs.10,170/- with the Ops. The complainant has paid the total PDCO amount and the energy charges consumed by him and nothing is due against the said connection, so, the complainant is entitled to restore the above-said electric connection. 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 Forum and filed the application for dismissal of complaint alleging therein that the connection bearing account No.DD04-1560 was released in favour of father of complainant which has become PDCO vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016, which the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as part payment on 29.07.2015, Rs.38,900/- as part payment on 02.05.2019 and lastly paid on 08.06.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,164/- while moving the application by the complainant after dismissal of previous complaint on the same ground. Reply to the said application was filed by the complainant mentioning therein that the Ops did not give any bill to the complainant till 2015 and did not inform the pending payment towards the complainant by other sources. Whenever the Ops demanded the payment, the complainant deposited the whole amount, now there is no remaining balance of the Ops towards the complainant. The Ops disconnected the connection in the record only and the Ops removed the transformer in the year 2020. The Ops did not disconnect the connection permanently till now then how circular applied on the connection of the complainant.
3. The Ops further contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; estoppels; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the connection in dispute was released in favour of father of complainant which has become PDCO vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016 on account of non-depositing the arrear amount. The complainant also filed a complaint in regard of above-said connection which has been dismissed by this Commission on 03.04.2019. It is further stated that after receiving the application from the complainant, the answering Ops forwarded the same to the higher authorities and the S.E. UHBVN Kaithal returned the same thereby giving remarks to follow the sale circulars of the Nigam and “As per sales circular No.U-29/2019, U-6 of 2004 and U-31 of 2003, after two years of disconnection, the application will be treated as a new connection”. The complainant has duly informed about the facts before forwarding the application to the XEN UHBVN Kaithal by the answering Ops. The complainant applied for a new electric connection (AP) with the Nigam vide application No.X-45-620-30 dt. 02.06.2020 and now the complainant is entitled to get new electricity connection as per seniority list. Hence, old PDCO connection cannot be restored as per above-said sales circular. 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.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R18 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Ops has taken the first objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and filed the application for dismissal of the complaint because the earlier complaint of the complainant bearing No.74 of 2018 was already dismissed vide order dt. 03.04.2019. We have gone through the previous order Annexure-R6. The main grievance of the complainant in the previous case is that due to non-depositing of the defaulting amount, the connection was disconnected and whole of the standing crops was destroyed for not irrigating the crop and caused the loss of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant but now situation is different. The complainant had deposited the whole of amount which was shown due upto May, 2020 in Annexure-R1. Hence, the controversy included in earlier complaint is not identical to the controversy involved in the present case. No doubt, the complainant has not mentioned the previous litigation in the present complaint. We are of the considered view when there is new cause of action arises again certainly the present complaint is maintainable in the present form. Therefore, we find that the complainant cannot be deprived off his right for filing the present complaint and rule of natural justice were required to be read into all statutes, unless specifically or inevitably excluded, even where the right of being heard was not specifically provided. Hence, we are of the considered view that the application for dismissal of complaint deserves no merits, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
8. The claim of complainant in this case is only to restore the tubewell connection bearing account No.DD04-1560 which was in the name of father of complainant being LR and the complainant has legal right to file the present complaint for restoration of the connection in question. Actually the said connection was disconnected due to non-payment of consumption/electricity charges which were cleared by the complainant vide payment receipts dt. 02.05.2019 and 08.06.2020 as per Annexure-R1 statement of account and as per letter written by S.D.O. to the XEN for approval of AP RCO account No.DD04-1560 which shows that the complainant has deposited the whole of the due amount upto May, 2020 on 08.06.2020 as shown in the copy of ledger/statement of account as per Annexure-R1.
The Ops have placed on record copy of permanent disconnection order bearing No.534/84 dt. 29.07.2016 shown effected on 23.12.2016 Annexure-R2. As per ledger record Annexure-R1, the Ops have also raised the bill with the consumption from the complainant upto January, 2018 and after January, 2018 the Ops also raised the bill without consumption with surcharge upto September, 2018 and the complainant got deposited the amount of Rs.38,900/- on 02.05.2019 and further the Ops have shown the arrear of Rs.10,164/- upto the period May, 2020. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant after depositing the whole amount prayed for R.C.O. of the same connection and the matter was send by the S.D.O. for approval of R.C.O. vide Annexure-R8 to the XEN “OP” Division Kaithal and the XEN referred the matter regarding reconnection of the AP connection to S.E. (OP) Circle UHBVN Kaithal vide Annexure-R9 but S.E. has declined the request of the complainant in view of the sales circular No.U-31/2003, U-06-2004 by confirming date of effect of PDCO from the Billing Agency. We have gone through the P.D.C.O. Annexure-R2 dt. 29.07.2016 and effected on 23.12.2016. It is mentioned on the P.D.C.O. bearing No.84 in the column of “Particular of the removed meter and status report of the meter”, the supply of account No.DD04-1560 is being temporarily disconnected due to non-payment of bill and the said report is of dated 23.12.2016. In view of the above facts, it is proved that the said PDCO has never been acted upon and implemented. The said PDCO was done only in papers but not on the spot. It is clear that the intention of complainant was only to get his connection restored and only thereafter, he had cleared all the arrears that too before taking any action by the Ops for recovery of the amount. It seems that the Ops might have assured the complainant that they would restore the connection subject to clearance of arrears by him and after the whole payment, the Ops have started backing out from their assurance. Moreover, there is no revenue loss to the Ops and the complainant has deposited the whole amount upto May, 2020 as mentioned in the Annexure-R1 copy of ledger. From the record, it is clear that the Ops have neither adjusted the security of the connection in dispute in arrears of bill or nor they had refunded the same till date. Ld. Counsel for the Ops has vehemently argued that after period of two years of P.D.C.O., the connection in question cannot be restored in view of the sales circular Annexure-R11 to Annexure-R13. The complainant has taken the specific plea in para No.5 of the complaint that the transformer has been removed on 16.05.2020. The Ops have not denied the above-said facts regarding removal of the transformer on 16.05.2020. Meaning thereby, the connection remained effective upto 16.05.2020. So, we are of the view that the factum of P.D.C.O. or disconnection of the connection prior to 16.05.2020 has no force in the eyes of law and the complainant cannot be deprived off for restoration of the connection on the technical grounds regarding limitation etc. The facility of tubewell connection is very essential amenity for the farmer for irrigating his land. We hold that the period of limitation for two years for restoration of the connection does not come in the way. Hence, the above-said circular Annexure-R11, Annexure-R12 and Annexure-R13 are not applicable in the present case. However, from perusal of the copy of statement of account Annexure-R1, it is clear that the Ops have not charged the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) from the period January, 2018 upto removal of the transformer i.e. on 16.05.2020 which were fixed by the Ops in such type of tubewell connection of complainant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the complainant to deposit the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) from the period January, 2018 upto 16.05.2020 in question within seven days after receiving the demand of minimum consumption charges from the period mentioned above. The Ops are also directed to calculate the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) and to send the demand to the complainant immediately.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to restore the tubewell connection of the complainant bearing account No.DD04-1560 within 15 days after depositing the minimum consumption charges mentioned above. It is made clear that if the Ops failed to send the demand of the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) as mentioned above, even then the Ops are bound to restore the connection in question within the period as mentioned above and the demand can be raised later on in the future bills. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:28.08.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.193 of 2020.
Date of institution: 07.07.2020.
Date of decision:28.08.2020.
Ramesh son of late Sh. Ram Chander, resident of Village Kailram, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban Sub Division No.2, UHBVN, Kaithal.
- Executive Engineer, Operation Divn., UHBVN Kaithal.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Secretary/M.D.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. S.S.Malik, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that the father of complainant namely Sh. Ram Chander (since deceased) was having an electric tubewell connection bearing account No.DD04-1560. After the death of his father, the complainant was using the above-said electric connection and has been paying the electricity bills regularly. The said electric connection was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016 due to non-payment of Rs.37,361/-. It is further alleged that on 02.05.2019 the complainant deposited PDCO amount of Rs.38,900/- with the Ops and thereafter on 08.06.2020 deposited the balance PDCO amount of Rs.10,170/- with the Ops. The complainant has paid the total PDCO amount and the energy charges consumed by him and nothing is due against the said connection, so, the complainant is entitled to restore the above-said electric connection. 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 Forum and filed the application for dismissal of complaint alleging therein that the connection bearing account No.DD04-1560 was released in favour of father of complainant which has become PDCO vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016, which the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as part payment on 29.07.2015, Rs.38,900/- as part payment on 02.05.2019 and lastly paid on 08.06.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,164/- while moving the application by the complainant after dismissal of previous complaint on the same ground. Reply to the said application was filed by the complainant mentioning therein that the Ops did not give any bill to the complainant till 2015 and did not inform the pending payment towards the complainant by other sources. Whenever the Ops demanded the payment, the complainant deposited the whole amount, now there is no remaining balance of the Ops towards the complainant. The Ops disconnected the connection in the record only and the Ops removed the transformer in the year 2020. The Ops did not disconnect the connection permanently till now then how circular applied on the connection of the complainant.
3. The Ops further contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; estoppels; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the connection in dispute was released in favour of father of complainant which has become PDCO vide PDCO No.84/534 dt. 23.12.2016 on account of non-depositing the arrear amount. The complainant also filed a complaint in regard of above-said connection which has been dismissed by this Commission on 03.04.2019. It is further stated that after receiving the application from the complainant, the answering Ops forwarded the same to the higher authorities and the S.E. UHBVN Kaithal returned the same thereby giving remarks to follow the sale circulars of the Nigam and “As per sales circular No.U-29/2019, U-6 of 2004 and U-31 of 2003, after two years of disconnection, the application will be treated as a new connection”. The complainant has duly informed about the facts before forwarding the application to the XEN UHBVN Kaithal by the answering Ops. The complainant applied for a new electric connection (AP) with the Nigam vide application No.X-45-620-30 dt. 02.06.2020 and now the complainant is entitled to get new electricity connection as per seniority list. Hence, old PDCO connection cannot be restored as per above-said sales circular. 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.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R18 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Ops has taken the first objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and filed the application for dismissal of the complaint because the earlier complaint of the complainant bearing No.74 of 2018 was already dismissed vide order dt. 03.04.2019. We have gone through the previous order Annexure-R6. The main grievance of the complainant in the previous case is that due to non-depositing of the defaulting amount, the connection was disconnected and whole of the standing crops was destroyed for not irrigating the crop and caused the loss of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant but now situation is different. The complainant had deposited the whole of amount which was shown due upto May, 2020 in Annexure-R1. Hence, the controversy included in earlier complaint is not identical to the controversy involved in the present case. No doubt, the complainant has not mentioned the previous litigation in the present complaint. We are of the considered view when there is new cause of action arises again certainly the present complaint is maintainable in the present form. Therefore, we find that the complainant cannot be deprived off his right for filing the present complaint and rule of natural justice were required to be read into all statutes, unless specifically or inevitably excluded, even where the right of being heard was not specifically provided. Hence, we are of the considered view that the application for dismissal of complaint deserves no merits, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
8. The claim of complainant in this case is only to restore the tubewell connection bearing account No.DD04-1560 which was in the name of father of complainant being LR and the complainant has legal right to file the present complaint for restoration of the connection in question. Actually the said connection was disconnected due to non-payment of consumption/electricity charges which were cleared by the complainant vide payment receipts dt. 02.05.2019 and 08.06.2020 as per Annexure-R1 statement of account and as per letter written by S.D.O. to the XEN for approval of AP RCO account No.DD04-1560 which shows that the complainant has deposited the whole of the due amount upto May, 2020 on 08.06.2020 as shown in the copy of ledger/statement of account as per Annexure-R1.
The Ops have placed on record copy of permanent disconnection order bearing No.534/84 dt. 29.07.2016 shown effected on 23.12.2016 Annexure-R2. As per ledger record Annexure-R1, the Ops have also raised the bill with the consumption from the complainant upto January, 2018 and after January, 2018 the Ops also raised the bill without consumption with surcharge upto September, 2018 and the complainant got deposited the amount of Rs.38,900/- on 02.05.2019 and further the Ops have shown the arrear of Rs.10,164/- upto the period May, 2020. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant after depositing the whole amount prayed for R.C.O. of the same connection and the matter was send by the S.D.O. for approval of R.C.O. vide Annexure-R8 to the XEN “OP” Division Kaithal and the XEN referred the matter regarding reconnection of the AP connection to S.E. (OP) Circle UHBVN Kaithal vide Annexure-R9 but S.E. has declined the request of the complainant in view of the sales circular No.U-31/2003, U-06-2004 by confirming date of effect of PDCO from the Billing Agency. We have gone through the P.D.C.O. Annexure-R2 dt. 29.07.2016 and effected on 23.12.2016. It is mentioned on the P.D.C.O. bearing No.84 in the column of “Particular of the removed meter and status report of the meter”, the supply of account No.DD04-1560 is being temporarily disconnected due to non-payment of bill and the said report is of dated 23.12.2016. In view of the above facts, it is proved that the said PDCO has never been acted upon and implemented. The said PDCO was done only in papers but not on the spot. It is clear that the intention of complainant was only to get his connection restored and only thereafter, he had cleared all the arrears that too before taking any action by the Ops for recovery of the amount. It seems that the Ops might have assured the complainant that they would restore the connection subject to clearance of arrears by him and after the whole payment, the Ops have started backing out from their assurance. Moreover, there is no revenue loss to the Ops and the complainant has deposited the whole amount upto May, 2020 as mentioned in the Annexure-R1 copy of ledger. From the record, it is clear that the Ops have neither adjusted the security of the connection in dispute in arrears of bill or nor they had refunded the same till date. Ld. Counsel for the Ops has vehemently argued that after period of two years of P.D.C.O., the connection in question cannot be restored in view of the sales circular Annexure-R11 to Annexure-R13. The complainant has taken the specific plea in para No.5 of the complaint that the transformer has been removed on 16.05.2020. The Ops have not denied the above-said facts regarding removal of the transformer on 16.05.2020. Meaning thereby, the connection remained effective upto 16.05.2020. So, we are of the view that the factum of P.D.C.O. or disconnection of the connection prior to 16.05.2020 has no force in the eyes of law and the complainant cannot be deprived off for restoration of the connection on the technical grounds regarding limitation etc. The facility of tubewell connection is very essential amenity for the farmer for irrigating his land. We hold that the period of limitation for two years for restoration of the connection does not come in the way. Hence, the above-said circular Annexure-R11, Annexure-R12 and Annexure-R13 are not applicable in the present case. However, from perusal of the copy of statement of account Annexure-R1, it is clear that the Ops have not charged the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) from the period January, 2018 upto removal of the transformer i.e. on 16.05.2020 which were fixed by the Ops in such type of tubewell connection of complainant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the complainant to deposit the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) from the period January, 2018 upto 16.05.2020 in question within seven days after receiving the demand of minimum consumption charges from the period mentioned above. The Ops are also directed to calculate the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) and to send the demand to the complainant immediately.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to restore the tubewell connection of the complainant bearing account No.DD04-1560 within 15 days after depositing the minimum consumption charges mentioned above. It is made clear that if the Ops failed to send the demand of the minimum consumption charges (M.M.C.) as mentioned above, even then the Ops are bound to restore the connection in question within the period as mentioned above and the demand can be raised later on in the future bills. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:28.08.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
