DEV RAJ VINAIK vs CHAIRMAN, H.S.E.B., CHANDIGARH

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Yamunanagar dismissing the complaint. However, this appeal is concluded in his favour by the recent detailed order of this Commission in First Appeal No. 315 of 1993 Gabdu Ram of District Gurgaon v. THE Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Another decided on 27th of September, 1993. It, therefore, suffices to notice the merits in their barest outline.

THE facts are not in serious dispute and lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant who is apparently the owner of a brick-kiln had applied for an electric connection, therefor, which was sanctioned and he was duly allotted account No. Y 012/0856 and thereafter he continuously availed of the electric energy and diligently paid the charges, therefor against the said account. It would however, appear that two other persons by the name of Narain Parshad and Bikhi Chand had also been granted separate and distinct electric connections against meter Nos. 857 and 858 in the same premises. THE said two persons apparently fell into arrears to the tune of Rs. 24,868/-. However, to the appellant''s surprise, even though he had made no default whatsoever in the payment of electricity charges, his supply was disconnected and the respondent-Board''s officials unauthorisedly removed the meter without any notice or other rhyme or reason. Aggrieved thereby, the complaint was preferred seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- only. On notice being issued, the respondent-Board admitted the broad matrix of facts and conceded that two other electric connections had been given to distinct persons with separate meter numbers 857 and 858, but the suggestion was that the said persons were employees of the appellant and the three connections had been obtained for ulterior purposes. The stand was that the arrears of Narain Parshad and Bikhi Chand against meters No. 857 and 858 had risen to Rs. 24,868/- and, therefore, the electricity connection of the appellant was disconnected being in the same premises.

In support of his complaint, the appellant filed two detailed affidavits and apparently he was not even remotely challenged by way of cross-examination. Reliance was inevitably placed on documentary evidence as well. However, the respondent-Board apart from not assailing the testimony of the appellant, did not lead any evidence worth the name on its own. Nevertheless the District Forum summarily brushed aside the appellant''s reliance on AIR 1993 Andhra Pradesh 131 ''Y. Pridhvi Kumar v. The General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad'' and whilst clearly holding that the meter numbers 857 and 858 were distinct and separate in different names, curiously concluded as follows : "In the present case, the complainant himself is paying the bill but he has consumed heavy electricity of the remaining two electric connections, which are on his own premises. Those connections have been disconnected but the complainant cannot make use of his own connection, as the connections were installed in his own premises and so he is liable to pay the arrears of those connections also. As he has not paid the arrears of those connections, so his own connection No. 856 was rightly disconnected and the complainant is not entitled to the relief unless he clears the arrears of all the three electric connections installed on his own brick kiln. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit."

MR. P.C. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly and forcefully assailed the order of the District Forum as somewhat cryptic and wholly contrary to both principle and precedent. It was highlighted that it was common ground that the appellant himself had been most diligent in paying the electricity charges for his connection. Equally, it was not in dispute that he had neither given any security or guarantee for meter Nos. 857 and 858 of Narain Parshad and Bikhi Chand, who were independent consumers of electricity. Inevitably, firm reliance was placed on ''Gabdu Ram of District Gurgaon v. The Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Another'' (supra). There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. Mr. Naresh Katyal, the learned Counsel for the respondent did not fairly dispute the fact that the electricity connections against which arrears had arisen were distinct from those of the appellant and bore separate meter numbers. Nor could he meaningfully distinguished the ratio in Gabdu Ram''s case, which as already noticed, cover the issue, if not directly, but still by the clearest analogy.

IT is somewhat manifest that the core question herein is whether the respondent-Board can hold another receipient of electricity for the defaults or arrears of separate consumers holding independent electricity connections in their names and respective account numbers. On principle itself, it is somewhat manifest that this cannot be so. Holding otherwise would be a classic proverbial case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Even when pin-pointed, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board could draw our attention to no provision whatsoever either in the Act or the rules or the statutory instructions of the Sales Manual, which warranted the recovery of arrear from one electricity connection holder from another or to penalise any one of the independent consumers vicariously for the default of another. However, as the matter is concluded by precedent, it is unnecessary to labour the point afresh. In Gabdu Ram''s case, an identical stand was taken on behalf of the respondent-Board that it could recover the electricity charges of one consumer from his co-sharer. After an indepth examination of the matter, on principle as well as on the relevant provisions of the Sales Manual of the Haryana State Electricity Board, it was concluded as under : "In the light of the above, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative. IT is held that the arrears for electricity charges from one consumer cannot be recovered from his co-sharer having a separate electricity connection."

It is obvious that the aforesaid ratio covers the matter in favour of the appellant. Indeed he is on a stronger footing in so far as the other two persons having independent connections are not his kith and kin or co-sharers, but strangers with whom no close connection whatsoever has been established, barring some bald assertions unsupported by any testimony. For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the complaint preferred by the appellant. It is manifest that the disconnection of the appellant''s electricity connection was wholly illegal and unauthorised. If the same has not been already restored, it is directed that this should be done within one month from today. The appellant is obviously entitled to compensation for the unwarranted action of the respondent-Board and a patent deficiency in the supply of electricity services which they had undertaken. We are inclined to hold that a modest sum of Rs. 5000/- would meet the ends of justice herein and equally the appellant is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 500/- only.

THE aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the appellant within one month from today, failing which compliance would be enforced by the District Forum under the stringent provisions of Section 27 of the Act. Appeal allowed.