State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jugal Sharma vs Ndpl Now Tpdtl on 5 December, 2024
FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024
MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 21.08.2023
Date of Hearing: 25.09.2024
Date of Decision: 05.12.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 424/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. JUGAL SHARMA
R/O B-3/54, SECTOR-11
ROHINI DELHI-110085
(Through: Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
BUSINESS MANAGER
NDPL HUDSON LINES,
KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI.
(Through: Mr. Harish Kumar, AR)
... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Jugal Sharma, Appellant in person
Mr. Harish Kumar, AR of the respondent and Mr. Rajesh Verma
(Associate) for AR.
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 12
FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024
MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"1. A complaint filed by Sh. Jugal Kishore (hereinafter referred to as "complainant" under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") against business manager of NDPL (hereinafter referred to as "OP"). The complainant is seeking quashing of wrong and illegal bill of Rs. 53,850/-, payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and litigation expenses.
2. In brief the facts are that the complainant is residing at B- 3/54 Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi-85 and having electricity connection K No.44300150260C for non-domestic purpose only. It is stated that main dispute arose when OP negligently issue the bill of DL to NL and NL to DL and sent the bill for domestic supply @ of non-domestic type and bill of non-domestic consumption @ of domestic type. It is further stated that complainant made a request to OP dated 07.11.2005 to correct the bill which was wrongly issued for the connection of domestic light but the bill was issued for non-domestic type. However, in the office of OP no one ready to listen the grievance-of complainant.
3. The complainant is already paid the electricity bill of Rs.2130/- dated 20.02.2007 and Rs. 200/- dated 22.12.2008 and Rs.19,970/- dated 16.12.2006. It is further stated that complainant purchased the property from Smt. Parveen Bajaj on 26.05.2005 and till today the connection is in the name of Smt. Parveen Bajaj. It is stated that complainant received a wrong and illegal bill for the month of October, 2009 with due date 16.11.2009 of Rs. 53,850/-. It is stated that complainant paid Rs. 6,000/- to OP and was assured that the entire amount would be adjusted and DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
correct bill of complainant connection would be issued and acknowledgement also received dated 04.04.2009 wherein it is mentioned that issue revised bill as advised by HOG. (R&C) Rohini.
4. It is stated that Complainant approached to OP office to clarify or to find out where is the fault and to solve the dispute of bill. But no one was ready to find out as well as of the impugned bill, hence the complaint filed."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed order dated 13.07.2023, whereby it held as under:
"11. The law is well settled on the proposition of law with regard to transfer of dues by OP by our own Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of Delhi which is as under:
In the case of Mrs. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs.NDPL 129 (2006) DLT 213 Division Bench of Hon'ble High court discussed the powers vested in DERA and DERC which are reproduced hereunder:-
14.In our opinion, there is no distinction between the purchaser of a premises who was aware that there were outstanding electricity dues against the previous owner/tenant, and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the new owner/occupant before supply can be continued/restored. This is because of the statutory provision contained in Clause 2 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply which has been quoted above.
15.In our opinion, whenever a person purchases a property, it is has duty to find out whether there are outstanding electricity dues in relation to the premises or not, and he cannot be allowed to say later that he was unaware of the fact that there were electricity dues of the previous owner/tenant.
16.In view of the General Condition of Supply, it is the duty of the new owner/occupant 1o himself make enquiries and find out whether there DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
was such dues or not. The General conditions of Supply statutory in nature (being delegated legislation), and hence the question of bonafide or malafide does not arise, and in either case the new owner/occupant of the premises has to pay the dues against the previous owner/tenant, Page1121 if he wishes the electricity supply to be continued/restored.
17. It is obvious that the purpose of framing Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply was that many persons, against whom there were huge electricity dues tried to avoid payment of the same by selling/transferring the property, and in this way the electricity department/electricity company could not recover its dues. In our opinion, there is no illegality or unconstitutionality in sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the General Condition of Supply.
18. It may be mentioned in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P State Electricity Board AIR 1998 4 SSC 1715, the Supreme Court took the view that even in the absence of a contract the terms and conditions of supply will be governed by the statutory Regulations and they will applicable to the consumers who will be bound by them.
19.Under Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply contained in the tariff order 1997-98 and 2001-02 which has been framed by the Delli Electricity Regulatory Commission, it has been specifically stated that supply of electricity is subject to the condition that the applicant deposits development charge, advance consumption deposit and all such charges as may be applicable including outstanding dues against the premises and/or disconnected connection.
20. The above Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply has been framed under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as well as Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and hence is a piece of delegated legislation.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024
MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
21.The learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment has struck down Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply, With respect to him, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the said Clause as it comes within the purview of the Tariff Order framed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. We do not agree that the General Conditions of Supply required approval of the State Legislature under the proviso to Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as in our opinion they are not Regulations made under Section 79.
22. We agree with the learned Single Judge who has disposed of Writ Petition (c) No. 3532/2003 Ms. Madhu Garg v. North Delhi Power Ltd. by directing her to pay the dues for the electricity consumer by one Jathedar Richpal Singh. However, as already observed above, even is she was unaware she has to pay the outstanding dues.
26. In our opinion, this is nor the correct position of the law, The new owner/occupant, whether he was a heir or successor or not, has to pay the outstanding dues if he wants continuation/restoration of the electricity connection.
Further, notice of existence of arrears is not the requirement in the Clause2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of the supply. Also, there is no requirement for the licensee to first initiate recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against the old consumer before disconnecting the supply. As observed by the Supreme Court in Swastic Industries Vs. MSEB (vide para 5):-
Page 1123 it would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024
MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the Suit and the intimation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut off the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges.
27. In our opinion, an interpretation of the law which furthers the preservation and protection of public property ought to be adopted. If arrears of electricity charge outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with a contractual claim of damages, it would encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or other in respect of such arrears and evade the consequences of non-payment of electricity charges viz disconnection/non-resumption of supply.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Vs. M/S Srigdhaa Beverages dated 1 st June, 2020 has held as under:-
15. In our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges, which needs to be emphasized:
A. That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910) and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.
16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which has emerged, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside while opining that appellant No.1 would be well DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
within its right to demand the arrears due of the last owner, from the respondent-purchaser.
12. The full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon`ble Chief Justice of India, in a recent case titled as K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2109-2110 of 2004 decided on 19.05.2023 along with several other Civil appeals laid down the principle of law as under:
I. Conclusions
328. The conclusions are summarised below:
a. the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to hose particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities;
c. For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection' the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the PART I premises are difference, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection;
d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have statutory character;
e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners;
f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act;
g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge;
h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.
13. Now applying the principle of law in the present fact and circumstance) of the case, the complainant admitted that the property purchased by him from Smt. Parveen Bajaj where already electricity connection was installed. There are arrears of Rs. 40943 including LPSC of previous connection K.No.44300150260NL in the name of Smt. Parveen Bajai This fact is concealed by the complainant as discussed herein above the law is well settled that the statutory dues on the premises legally can be transferred to the purchaser. The complainant being the purchaser of the premises is liable to pay the dues on the premises. Hence, the impugned bill raised by OP is legal justified and there is no deficiency of service.
14. On the basis of above observation and discussion the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present appeal, contending that the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 was passed by the District Commission with material irregularity and without properly appreciating the facts and law.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024
MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the District Commission failed to consider the fact that the Appellant had paid the bill for K No- 44300150260, vide Bill No. 0612898819, dated 16.12.2006, for an amount of Rs. 19,970/- via DD No. 495144, and another bill for K No-44300150259, dated 26.12.2006, for an amount of Rs. 31,190/- via Cheque No. 124186 and no dues are pending against the appellant More so, all evidence regarding the same were submitted before District Commission. Therefore, the District Commission wrongly concluded that the Appellant concealed the fact that the property purchased by him from Smt. Praveen Bajaj already had a connection installed and arrears of Rs. 40,948, including LPSC, from the previous connection bearing No. 44300150260NL in the name of Smt. Praveen Bajaj and FFfstatutory dues on the premises can legally be transferred to the purchaser.
4. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the Appellant never defaulted in the payment of the said bill, and payment receipts have been placed on record. The payment made by the appellant has not been denied by the Respondent. He also submitted that that the District Commission erred in holding that there was no deficiency on the part of the Respondent, as the Appellant/complainant presented cogent evidence and several times, officials of the Respondent admitted their default. Pressing these submissions, the Appellant prayed for the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
5. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order. The counsel for the respondent further submitted that the final order from District Commission is reasoned and the Appellant is trying to get undue advantage of his own wrong as he is trying to avoid payment of legitimate and justified charges outstanding against his Connection no 45300150260 DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
(CA No. 60008863635). The electricity Connection is in the name of One Smt. Praveen Bajaj and Appellant is using the same for Commercial purpose as Applied electricity tariff comes under the NDLT category.
6. Further, the counsel for the Respondent contended that Appellant is not consumer under the definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore the present appeal is not maintainable in view of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National bank. Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 dated 22.2.2023. Moreover, it was well admitted by him before District Commission the connection is in use for non-domestic purpose and never declared that the same is used for Earning his livelihood and issue was not considered even after raising objection on record. Therefore, the present appeal needs to be dismissed.
7. Written Argument of both the parties is on record and the same have been considered.
8. We have perused the Appeal, Reply of the Respondent and the Impugned Order of the District Commission.
9. The main question of consideration before us is whether the consumer courts can entertain complaints against the power bills assessed under the Electricity Act.
10. To answer this, we deem it appropriate to refer to U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 wherein Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"From a bare reading of section aforesaid we find that the "consumer" as defined under Section 2(15) includes any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee and also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, irrespective of the fact whether such person is supplied DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
with electricity for his own use or not. Per contra, under Section 2(1)d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 those who were supplied with electricity for commercial purpose and those who do not avail services for consideration, irrespective of electricity connection in their premises, do not come within the meaning of "consumer".
11. On this issue, the law is well settled by the Apex court, which has held that consumer courts cannot entertain complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act or take action against power corporations and a complaint against the assessment made by the corporation is not maintainable before a consumer Commission.
12. In the present case, the Complainant has two connections one for NL (Non- Domestic) purposes, bearing K. No. 44300150260, and another for DL (Domestic) purposes, bearing K. No. 44300150259. However, the Appellant alleged that the main dispute arose when the Respondent interchanged the bills for DL and NL, i.e., the Respondent sent the bill for domestic supply at the non-domestic rate and the bill for non-domestic consumption at the domestic rate. Moreover, the Appellant/Complainant received an incorrect bill for the month of October 2009 for Rs. 53,850/-. Furthermore, the Appellant/Complainant admitted that the property purchased by him from Smt. Praveen Bajaj already had an electricity connection installed. There were arrears of Rs. 40,943, including LPSC, from the previous connection K. No. 44300150260NL in the name of Smt. Praveen Bajaj. As a result, it is clear that the present matter pertains to the assessment of power bills. Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned facts, the present case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
13. From the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the District Commission has failed to consider the maintainability of the present case while deciding the case on merits. Since, the consumer courts cannot entertain the DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 12 FA/424/2023 D.O.D.: 05.12.2024 MR. JUGAL SHARMA VS. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act, 2003, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Further, the Appellant is at liberty to file the present case before the appropriate authority in accordance with law and shall also be entitled to claim benefit of the period spent during the proceedings before the consumer Commission for the purpose of limitation.
15. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
05.12.2024 L.R- Z.A DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 12