GABDU RAM vs H.S.E.B.

WHETHER the arrears for electricity charges due from one consumer can be recovered from any one of his co-sharers? This indeed is the only question in this appeal.

THE salient facts which emerge is that one Shri Ram Ji Lal had an electricity connection for his tube-well bearing account No. RAG-188. THE Appellant subsequently during December, 1989 obtained an entirely separate electric connection for the motor installed in the said tube-well bearing account No. RAG-373. To his surprise, in July, 1991 an amount of Rs. 9731.60 was added to his bill for recovery. Aggrieved thereby, he protested to the department but getting no relief from them, ultimately knocked at the doors of District Forum, Gurgaon. On notice being issued, the respondent-Board took up the plea that earlier at the said tube-well, Shri Ramji Lal had an electric connection bearing No. RAG-188. The land on the said well was allegedly owned jointly by Ram Lal, Ganpat Lal, Gabdu Ram etc. It was the plea that Shri Ramji Lal did not pay the electricity consumption charges and ultimately his power was disconnected and his arrears continued. Therefore the appellant Shri Gabdu Ram had obtained a separate electric connection on the same well and on that premise the right to recover the arrears of Ramji Lal from him was claimed.

In the replication, the appellant took-up the fair stand that he was a co-sharer with Ramji Lal but fairly pleaded that his electricity connection was entirely separate and was installed in a different room and consequently no liability about the arrears of Ramji Lal could fall upon him.

THE District Forum somewhat summarily has observed that in the normal circumstances, the plea of the Appellant should have been accepted but because the connection in the name of Ramji Lal was on the well which was jointly owned by the Appellant with Ramji Lal, he was, therefore, liable for the arrears. Mr. Yadav, the learned Counsel for the appellant has forcefully assailed the order under appeal. It was highlighted that the said Shri Ramji Lal had since died and his property and interest had been inherited by his direct descendents namely his sons, who have also obtained a new connection bearing RAG-635. It was submitted that the appellant having been given an independent connection cannot possibly be saddled with the arrears of a deceased co-sharer for an altogether different electricity connection. In any case, it was the stand that the liability should fall on his direct heirs and the firm stand was that no rule or instruction warranted recovery from any or every co-sharer in this context.

THERE is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. On larger principle, it is manifest that each individual electricity consumer is liable only for the particular connection Rearing its Account Number. THERE cannot be easily any warrant from recovering the dues of one consumer from another because this would be a somewhat proverbial case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Herein there is no manner of doubt that the electricity connection of Ramji Lal, deceased and the appellant were distinct and separate. On the basic rules of succession the liability, if any, could only fall on the direct heirs of the deceased Ramji Lal. It is well known that on a well, the agricultural holdings may be owned by numerous co-sharers. Neither chapter nor verse could be cited initially on behalf of the respondent-board, as to how any other co-sharer could be picked upon for shifting the liability and adding the arrears of a deceased consumer to another as in the case of the appellant. Mr. Katyal, learned Counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid context had sought time to rely on any binding statutory provisions which warranted what appears to us as an altogether unwarranted levy upon the appellant. Ultimately, he had sought to place basic reliance on instructions No. 35 of the Sales Manual of the Haryana State Electricity Board and in particular Clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Since the respondent''s stand turns on these provisions it is apt to notice them in extenso. "Reconnection of a Service line. xx xx xx 5 (a). When a reconnection to a premises which has been disconnected for non-payment of Board''s dues is applied for by a member of the same family or a person jointly occupying the premises, with the defaulting consumer and using electricity from his connection, it should not be allowed till the Board''s dues including reconnection fee have been paid in full. (b) However, in genuine cases where the applicant jointly occupying the premises with the defaulting consumer is not related to him and the reconnection will not benefit the old consumer, the reconnection may be allowed after the applicant pays at least a reasonable part of the defaulting amount in proportion to the period he has been occupying the premises and probably energy consumed by him. It should not be difficult for the local staff who generally come into contact with the consumers, to verify the facts by vitrue of the nature of their duties. If, however, the defaulting consumer has vacated the premises the new applicant applies for reconnection, the same should be sanctioned and efforts made to recover the outstanding dues from the former consumer by suitable means."

Even a bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that these cannot in any way aid or advance the case of the respondent. As the very heading of the instructions shows, it pertains to the reconnection of a Service line. Herein, the admitted position is that electricity connections were distinct and separate bearing different Account Numbers. No question of the reconnection of the same service line arises herein and consequently the aforesaid instructions would not operate at all on the very threshold. Even otherwise, a reading of para 5(a) would show that the same provides that the reconnection may not be allowed till the Board''s dues have been paid. It does not even remotely warranted that the board can whimsically levy the arrears of any one of the coowners of a deceased consumer, whose electricity for different account was disconnected. Yet again Clause (b) of para 5 is only an enabling provision for providing electricity to a person who was not related to the defaulting consumer and ensuring that the same would not benefit the latter, if the reasonable proportional part is paid by him. We are wholly unable to read instruction No. 35 or para 5 thereof as warranting the levy of dues of one co-owner on another having altogether different electricity connections.

IN fairness, we must also notice Mr. Katyal''s reliance on INstruction No. 182 in the alternative for his plea. However, the very heading thereof pertaining to interest charge leviable on the Panchayat/Municipal Committees etc. after permanent disconnections and regularisation of free charges on other consumers after permanent disconnection would all show that some has not the least relevance to the issue before us.

IN the light of the above, the answer to the question posed at the out-set 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 separate electricity connection. Once the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at, ths Appellant must inevitably succeed. We are constrained to set-aside the order under appeal and hold that the addition of Rs. 9731.60 Ps. to the appellant''s bill was un-authorised and unwarranted and is hereby set-aside and the complaint is allowed in the said terms. The appellant is also entitled to his costs, which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/-only. Appeal allowed with costs.