State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & ... vs Sandeep Goel on 19 November, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 / 2014
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban)
Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Urban)
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
Haridwar
...... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Sandeep Goel S/o late Sh. Harikrishan Goel
R/o Shyam Vihar Colony, Kankhal
Haridwar
...... Respondent
Sh. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 19/11/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 114 of 2014.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that late Sh. Harikrishan Goel, the father of the complainant, had expired on 07.12.1999. There was an electricity connection No. 691/0427/008610 in the name of complainant's father, which was installed at Mohalla Miserpura, Kankhal. After the death of his father, 2 the complainant had got the said electricity connection permanently disconnected and had taken another electricity connection in his own name. The above-mentioned electricity connection was disconnected 13-14 years' ago from the date of filing the consumer complaint and there were no dues against the complainant at the time of permanent disconnection. Few days' prior to the filing of the consumer complaint, the Amin came to the complainant and handed over a recovery notice issued by the electricity department to the complainant, wherein sum of Rs. 1,07,461/- was shown due against the complainant in respect of the above-mentioned electricity connection. The complainant got surprised on seeing the said recovery notice. The complainant never received any demand notice from the electricity department. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The electricity department filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that after the death of his father, the complainant did not get the electricity connection transferred in his name; that the complainant has consumed the electricity energy till July, 2011 and the meter reading was shown as 42456; that the permanent disconnection was made on 08.07.2011 and electricity bill upto the said date was raised against the complainant; that the demand made is valid; that since the complainant did not deposit the amount due and hence the recovery proceedings were initiated against him and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 25.11.2014 and quashed the recovery notice issued by the electricity department 3 against the respondent - complainant for recovery of Rs. 1,07,461/- and also restrained the electricity department from recovery any amount from the respondent - complainant on the basis of the said recovery notice. The District Forum has further held that the amount due against the respondent - complainant at the time of permanent disconnection, be recovered from him by the electricity department. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the electricity department has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. As per the own saying of the complainant, the electricity connection in question was in the name of his deceased father - late Sh. Harikrishan Goel. There is nothing on record to show that upon the death of his father, the complainant had got the electricity connection transferred / mutated in his name. The electricity department had issued an office memorandum dated 05.01.2012 (Paper No. 15) to the father of the complainant, calling upon him to deposit the electricity dues of Rs. 1,07,461/-. The complainant did not take any action against the said office memorandum and filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum on 27.03.2014 upon receipt of demand notice.
7. This apart, the permanent disconnection report (Paper No. 17) clearly shows that the electricity connection was permanently disconnected on 08.07.2011 and since the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he had ever applied with the electricity department for permanent disconnection of the electricity connection in question or ever deposited the disconnection charges and, as such, there was nothing wrong on the part of the electricity 4 department in raising the demand. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that he has deposited any amount towards disconnection charges nor has given any date of the alleged disconnection of the electricity connection.
8. It would not be out of place to mention here that since the electricity connection in question was in the name of complainant's father and the same was not got transferred / mutated by the complainant in his name after death of his father and, as such, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the electricity department, as the contract of supply of electricity got automatically terminated on the death of the consumer. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant can not be termed to be a "consumer" of the electricity department and the consumer complaint filed by him was not at all maintainable.
9. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 25.11.2014 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 114 of 2014 is dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, be released in their favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K