State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh Sat Pal vs North Delhi Power Ltd(Tdpl) on 5 December, 2024
FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 15.01.2024
Date of Hearing: 15.05.2024
Date of Decision: 05.12.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.-38/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SAT PAL,
S/O MR. BELI RAM,
R/O H. NO. J-869, JAHANGIRPURI,
DELHI-110033.
...Appellant
(Through: Mr. Pankaj Maurya, Advocate)
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
HUDSON LANE, KINGSWAY CAMP,
NEW DELHI-110009
....Respondent
(Through: Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Advocate)
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 16
FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE Mr. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Pankaj (Ph No. 9811892948), Counsel for Appellant.
Mr. P.S. Rajput (Enrl. No. D/3809/13, Ph. No. 9810135474,
email ID: [email protected]), Counsel for Respondent.
PER: MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"In brief the facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased the residential premises bearing no. J-869, Jahangirpuri, Delhi in the name of his wife Smt. Kashmere Devi on 16.8.2007 against registered power of attorney. It is further stated that the complainant found the electricity supply of the aforesaid premises disconnected and so approached the OP to reconnect it, but the opposite party was delaying the reconnection without telling the complainant any sufficient reason either on one or the other pretext.
It is stated that on 31.12.2007, one of the employees of the opposite party suggested the complainant to take the bill/ final bill of the electricity supply against the aforesaid premises. On his suggestion, the complainant has taken the electricity bill on 31.12.2007. This electricity bill bearing its No. 0709199787 shows that there was an arrears of electricity for Rs. 34,140/- till 31.12.2007 against K.No.45200149239L. It is further stated that the complainant immediately deposited Rs.17,000/- as full and final settlement against the aforesaid arrears of electricity DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) supply of the aforesaid premises of the complainant with the old electricity meter vide its No. 1409390, and after two days, the said electricity supply of the complainant has been reconnected through the same old electricity meter present on site.
It is stated that the opposite party further insisted to deposit Rs.17,750/- as the balance amount Rs. 17,140/- including the LPSC thereon illegally, and again without any notice disconnected the said electricity supply of the complainant. The same was again reconnected after the payment of Rs.17,750/- to the opposite party through cheque encashed on 17.07.2008 from his account in HDFC Bank, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
It is stated that the opposite party has not sent any bill to the complainant and complainant repeatedly made the oral as well as written complaints to the opposite party. More particularly the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party on 14.11.2008 that the opposite party is not sending any bill to the complainant, then the opposite party has taken the reading of the meter on 14.11.2008 and gave the acknowledgment showing therein the meter reading as 12760 units.
It is stated that the opposite party suddenly replaced the old electricity meter vide its No. 140390 by new electric meter bearing its No. 41127148 and at the time of replacement of the old meter reading was recorded as 12848 units on 20.12.2008, it is further stated that as per the statement of K. No summary of the opposite party, the meter reading on 21.03.2004 was 12027 units. It is stated that the complainant has deposited all the arrears of electricity till 31.12.2007 before the reconnection of the aforesaid supply.
It is stated that the complainant was shocked and surprised after receiving the electricity bill vide its no. 0901556432 dated 28.01.2008 for Rs. 2,98,140/- which shows the consumption for July 2008 is 68698 units, which DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) is highly inflated, wrong and illegal. It is further stated that the OP has not sent any notice under section 56(1) for the disconnection of the aforesaid electricity supply till date, but on 25.03.2009 the employee of the opposite party came to the aforesaid premises of the complainant and tried to disconnect the aforesaid electricity supply of the complainant but on the earnest requests of the complainant, with folding hands, the said employees has given three days time for the settlement of the matter by depositing all arrears of electricity bill till date. But on 26.03.2009 the OP disconnected the electricity supply illegally.
It is stated that the demand of the opposite party for Rs. 2,98,097.82 is illegal and against the electricity laws and consumer laws time being enforce. So, the opposite party is deficient in services and practicing unfair trade practices as mentioned aforesaid demanding the illegal electricity charges and illegally attempted the complainant to disconnect his aforesaid electricity supply and for disconnecting the electricity supply.
The complainant has prayed to cancel all the electricity bills showing the illegal electricity consumption charges for inflated reading 68698 units, to cancel the electricity bill for bill month of July, 2008 of Rs. 285260.97, to restrain permanently the OP from disconnecting electricity supply for the complainant against K. no. 452001492300 at premises bearing no. J- 869, Jahangir puri, Delhi immediately, to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental harassment of the complainant and his family members to pay the cost of litigation to the complainant, any other or further relief which this Hon'ble forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the complainant and against the OP.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 15.12.2023, whereby it held as under:
"As per record it is admitted case of the complainant that the original electricity connection was in the name of Tek Ram as per documents filed on record. The premises bearing no. J-869, Jahangirpuri Delhi purchased by complainant in the name of his wife Kashmeri Devi on 16.08.2008 from one Ranveer Singh. However, no electricity bills filed on record in the name of seller Ranveer Singh. As per clause 3 of the property documents the purchaser may get water electricity and sewage connections and other services, however, there is no document on record that Kashmere Devi at any point of time applied for electricity connection after purchasing the premises. The electricity connection remains in the name of Tek Ram who remains as registered consumer. It is pertinent to mention here that OP has taken objection with regard to locus standi of complainant Satpal. It is admitted case of complainant that the property was purchased in the name of his wife Kashmere Devi from one Ranveer Singh and he has no legal right as per agreement in the property. The electricity connection stands in the name of registered consumer Tek Ram. There is no jural relation between complainant Satpal either with Ranveer Singh or Tek Ram registered consumer, therefore we are of considered opinion that complainant Satpal has no locus standi to alleged impugned electricity bill and other alleged actions of OP in the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable as Satpal has no locus standi to file the present case.
In order to appreciate respective contentions of both the parties let us peruse the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High court of Delhi. In the case of Mrs. Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs. NDPL 129(2006)DLT213 Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court discussed the powers vested in DERA and DERC which are reproduced here under.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
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 his 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 to himself make enquiries and find out whether there was such dues or not. The General conditions of Supply are 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 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.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
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 Delhi 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.
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 not 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 DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) 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. 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 charges outstanding in respect of electricity supplied to a premises were to be permitted to be equated with a contractual claims 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.
26. 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 alongwith several other Civil appeals laid down the principle of law as under:
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;
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) 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 those 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 a 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 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.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
27. It is admitted case of the complainant that as per the documents the registered consumer is Tek Ram. Smt. Kashmere Devi wife of complainant purchased the property from one Ranveer Singh. As per record OP filed documents which shows that on 23.09.2004 the electricity connection was disconnected due to non payment of dues. It is further admitted that after purchase of the property the electric meter was also changed. There was no bill prepared for about 35 months and electricity was illegally restored. Applying the well settled as discussed hereinabove the statutory dues stands against the premises not against the registered consumer. The statutory dues cannot be waived off. It is the duty of the purchaser to verify all the dues on the property at the time of purchasing. The purchaser of the property is under legal obligation to pay all the statutory dues of electricity which are due against the property. Therefore, Smt. Kashmere Devi is liable to pay all the dues of electricity of the premises from the date of purchase of the property.
28. On the basis of above observation and discussion the statutory demand of OP and impugned bill has been raised legally and same is payable by the purchaser of the property and the registered consumer of the electricity connection. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present case and on merit as well present case is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission-V, North West District; the Appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds -
a) That Appellant had purchased the residential premises bearing No. J-869, Jhahangirpuri, Delhi in the name of his wife Smt. Kashemere Devi on 16.08.2007 against registered power of attorney and other sale documents from its previous owner it is further submitted that the Appellant found the electricity supply of the aforesaid DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) premises disconnected and so the Appellant approached to the Respondent to reconnect the said supply.
b) That on 31.12.2007 one of the employees of the Respondent suggested the Appellant to take the bill/final bill of the electricity supply against the aforesaid premises, on his suggestion the appellant had taken the electricity bill on 31st Dec. 2007. This electricity bill bearing no.
0709199787 shows that there was an arrears of electricity of Rs. 34,140/- till 31.12.2007 against K.No. 452001492391, it is further stated that the Appellant immediately deposited Rs. 17,000/- as full and final settlement against aforesaid arrears of electricity supply and the electricity supply was reconnected after two days.
c) That Respondent has further stated that Appellant further insisted to deposit Rs. 17,750/- as the balance amount of Rs. 17,140/- including the LPSC thereon illegally and again without any notice disconnected the electricity supply of the Appellant. After the payment of Rs. 17,750/- to the Respondent through cheque enchased on 17.07.2008 from his account in HDFC Adrash Nagar Delhi, electricity supply was restored.
d) That Respondent did not send any bill to the Appellant and Appellant repeatedly made the oral as well as written complaints to the Respondent, more particularly the Appellant made a complaint to the Respondent on 14.11.2008 that the Respondent is not sending any bill to the Appellant, then the Respondent had taken the reading of the meter on 14.11.2008, and gave the acknowledgement showing the meter reading as 12760 units.
e) That Respondent suddenly replaced the old electricity meter vide its No. 1409390 by new electricity meter bearing its No. 41127148 and at the time of replacement of the old meter reading was recorded as 12848 Unit on 20.12.2008 and as per the statement of K. NO. summary of the Respondent, the meter reading on 21.03.2004 was 12027 units and the Appellant has deposited all the DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) arrears of electricity till 31.12.2007 before the reconnection of the aforesaid supply.
f) That Appellant was shocked and surprised after receiving electricity bill vide its No. 0901556433 dated 28.01.2008 for Rs. 2,98,140/- which shows that consumption for July 2008 was 68698 Units, which was highly inflated, wrong and illegal. The demand of the Respondent is Rs. 2,98,097/- is illegal and against the electricity laws and consumer laws.
g) That it is more clear that the Appellant is the purchaser of the said property and as per sale documents previous owner is liable to pay all the dues such as water and electricity and the Respondent has admitted himself that the owner of the electricity Mr. Tek Chand, K. No. 45200149239, so the Respondent has every his right to claim the dues if any from the said TEK Chand only.
h) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no fault on the part of the Appellant and impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises.
In view of above, Appellant has prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order, in the interest of justice.
4. The Respondent, in reply to the appeal has stated that the electricity bill was not being paid by the consumer and having no option, electricity connection was disconnected on 23.09.2004.
Since dues were still not paid and LPSC continued to accrue.
During inspection on 04.06.2008, supply was found restored illegally. Meter was found in damaged conditions and meter seals were also missing. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed towards DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) illegal restoration charges as per Electricity Act, 2003 and on 20.12.2008, old damaged meter was retained at the site itself and new meter was installed in its place. Based on past and recorded consumption of the Consumer, assessment was done towards escaped demand of more than four years which came out to be 68698 units. After making adjustment of payments made by Consumer, a net outstanding demand bill of Rs. 2,85,200/- was raised, which has now reached an amount of Rs. 10,25,830/- as on 04.02.2024.
5. The Respondent has further stated that the electricity bill was raised on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the energy meter and there is no discrepancy in the same. It is a settled law that irrespective period of occupancy of any premises, dues outstanding against electricity consumption must be paid by the subsequent occupant. Just for the fact that Appellant claims to be a subsequent purchaser of the subject premises would not absolve him from paying the dues legally outstanding against the said connection.
6. The Respondent has further stated that assessment bill cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings and the same has also been held by this Hon'ble Commission in its judgment dated 27.01.2022 in the matter "First Appeal No. 563/2013 in the matter of BSES DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Baba Sahab Ambedkar Ashram" by holding that "..the next question of consideration before us is whether the consumer courts can entertain complaints against the power bills assessed under Electricity Act. 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 Electricity Act or take action against power corporations and a complaint against the assessment made by the corporation is not maintainable before a consumer forum (Ref.: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 493)...". The bill has been raised by the Respondent as per DERC Regulations and reflects a lawful demand which the Appellant is bound to pay.
7. The Respondent has further relied on the judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter "Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs North Delhi Power Limited., 129 (2006) DLT 213 DB)", in the matter of "Harpreet Singh Bhatia Vs North Delhi Power Limited-2017:DHC:7673", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that such dues are recoverable.
8. The Respondent has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "W.B. State Electricity Board Vs. Fakir Chand Rice Mills and Ors. - MANU/SC/1494/1996", held DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024 MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL) that ".....Normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. In the situation obtaining in this case, when the appellant is obligated to supply electrical energy to the respondents an equal obligation has to be case on the respondents to pay the amount subject to determination of controversy in the suit. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
12 lakhs within a period of two months from today....". Accordingly, even at the interim stage, Appellant must pay at least 50% of the bill amount subject to final determination of controversy.
9. Appellant has contended that the District Commission has committed a grave error of law while passing the impugned order and has prayed to set aside the same, in the interest of justice.
10. We have perused the appeal, impugned judgment and material available on record including the reply of the Respondent etc. On perusal of record before us, it is noted that all the contentions which have been raised by the Appellant and Respondent in the present appeal have duly been taken into consideration by the District Commission before passing the impugned judgment. The District Commission has thoroughly answered all the contentions raised by both parties. After having gone through the facts of the case and after examining the detailed order passed by the District Commission, we do not find any irregularity in the findings arrived at by the District Commission.
DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 16 FA NO./38/2024 D.O.D.: 05/12/2024
MR. SATPAL V/S NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. (TPDDL)
11. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order against the Appellant. Otherwise also, there is nothing in favour of the Appellant to interfere with the orders of the District Commission-V. The appeal is dismissed.
12. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On : 05.12.2024.
DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 16