State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ujjagar Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 6 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1502 of 2007
Date of Institution: 20.11.2007
Date of decision : 6.3.2012
Ujjagar Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh R/O Bhai Himat Singh Nagar, Village Dugri,
Ludhiana through Punjab Khapatkar Sangh, (Regd.). Vishwakarma Chowk,
Ludhiana.
...Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO, Atam Nagar U-I, sub division,
Ludhiana.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 20.9.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. D.D. Bawa, Representative.
For the respondent : Sh. I.S. Panesar, Advocate.
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is the appeal against the order dated 20.9.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Ludhiana vide which the complaint the appellant was partly allowed. This appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Sh. Ujjagar Singh son of Sh. Labh Singh, appellant/complainant, is a senior citizen and retired from Telephone Department. He purchased a plot from Sh. Teja Singh. Thereafter the appellant constructed a shop in the said plot and started doing business of stationary in the said shop as self-employed without employment of any helper. It was pleaded that he applied for an electric connection with the respondents for this shop under NRS category. However, the respondents gave him electric connection No.MT61/1195 under domestic tariff. The appellant requested the respondents a number of times to correct the said mistake but the connection continued to be under domestic category. It was further, pleaded that he had been regularly First Appeal No. 1502 of 2007 2 paying the bills since the release of connection. Suddenly one day the respondents disconnected his connection on 14.3.2007 without any DCO or without any notice of 15 days as required under Electricity Act 2003. The appellant wrote one registered letter dated 14.3.2007 to the respondents but neither the connection was restored nor any reply was given to the said letter.
3. Hence the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to restore his connection immediately and granting Rs.500/- per day as compensation for the period of the connection remained disconnected.
4. Upon notice, the respondents filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that the premises, where electric connection in the name of appellant was released, were purchased by the appellant from one Sh. Teja Singh and an electric connection bearing AIC No.MT-61/251 was earlier installed and the same was lying permanently disconnected due to non-payment a of sum of Rs.2485/-. Later on, the appellant, after purchasing this property, obtained electric connection in his name by giving false declaration in the A & A form that no amount was pending against the said property. This fact came to notice on the basis of checking report dated 15.3.2007, made by Sh. Avtar Singh J.E. working under Model Town Division Special PSEB Ludhiana Vide LCR No.93/184. In fact the appellant was liable to pay this amount of Rs.2485/- before getting a new connection. It was further admitted that the electric connection No. MT-16/1195 of the appellant was disconnected due to non- payment of this defaulting amount outstanding against connection account No.MT61/251. Dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint of the appellant by quashing the demand of Rs.2485/- raised by the respondents against the appellant. The amount deposited, if any, by the appellant was ordered to be refunded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit First Appeal No. 1502 of 2007 3 till payment of entire amount. However, the respondent Board was granted the liberty to recover the defaulting amount in accordance with the law.
7. Hence the appeal for granting compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for the period the electric connection remained disconnected in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that District Forum has allowed the complaint but did not allow any compensation and cost as prayed in his complaint. It was further submitted that he was entitled to a compensation of Rs.500/- per day for the period of his connection remained disconnected as allowed by National Commission in the case titled "Chanderkant Mahadev Kadam Vs. Assistant Engineer MSEB" in revision petition No.604 of 2003 decided on 29.9.2003.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellants got the new connection installed in the same premises where an amount of Rs.2485/- was outstanding in the name of earlier owner of the premises. As per the rules and regulations of the respondent Board and law settled by the National Commission, the respondent Board is entitled to recover the said amount prior to the release of a new connection in the same premises and, therefore, disconnection of connection was justified. Dismissal of the appeal was prayed.
10. It is an admitted fact that an electric connection bearing No.MT61/251 was earlier existing in the premises where the appellant got a new electric connection No.MT61/1195 released in his own name in the same premises. The connection No.MT61/251 was disconnected on 14.3.2007 due to non-payment of Rs.2485/-. The respondents have proved on record a checking report No.93 dated 15.3.2007 in which the JE has given the report that electric connection No.MT61/251 was existing in the same premises where the connection No.MT61/1195 was running against which an amount of Rs.2485/- was outstanding. The appellant did not disclose this fact at the time of availing new connection in his name and gave a false undertaking on the A & A forms at the First Appeal No. 1502 of 2007 4 time of submitting applicants for new connection that no dues were outstanding against the previous owner.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law in a number of cases that the Electricity Board is entitled to recover the dues of the previous owner from the new purchaser / consumer as per terms and conditions of supply framed under Electricity Act.
12 Reliance can be placed on the judgment reported as Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. M/S Hanuman Rice Mills & Others 2010(3) Apex Court Judgments 234 (S.C.) where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
7. The appellant relies on the subsequent decision of this court in Paramount Polymers (supra) to distinguish the decision in Isha Marbels. In Paramount Polymers (supra), the terms and conditions of supply contained a provision (clause 21A) providing that reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account, unless the arrears are cleared. In view of the said express provision, this Court distinguished Isha Marbels on the following reasoning:-
"This Court in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v.
A.P.SEB 1998(2) SCR 620 has held that the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity notified by the Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act are statutory and the fact that an individual agreement is entered into by the Board with each consumer does not make the terms and conditions for supply contractual. This Court has also held that though theElectricity Board is not a commercial entity, it is entitled to regulate its tariff in such a way that a reasonable profit is left with it so as to enable it to undertake the activities necessary. If in that process in respect of recovery of dues in respect of a premises to which supply had been made, a condition is inserted for its recovery from a transferee of First Appeal No. 1502 of 2007 5 the undertaking, it cannot ex facie be said to be unauthorized or unreasonable.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as under:
Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser position in this case.
14. In view of the above findings and law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
15. The argument in this case were heard on 23.2.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the parties be communicated about the same.
16. The appeal could not be decided with in statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal)
President
March, 6 2012. (Baldev Singh Sekhon)
sk Member