HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OF AMBALA CANTT.-/O.P. vs VIDYAWANTI

THE Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Ambala allowing the complaint of the respondent-consumer.

SMT. Vidyawanti, the respondent-complainant had averred that she held an electric connection No. KW-08/1358-B installed in her residential premises at No. 119, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. It was averred that electricity charges for the said connection were duly pa id right up to the bill dated 16th of February, 1992. However, to her consternation, she received a bill dated the 16th of May, 1992, which included a sum of Rs. 14,789/- shown as either arrears, or sundry allowance, whilst in fact no arrears from her were due at all. On enquiry being made, it was revealed that the impugned amount of Rs. 14,706/- has been transferred into the account of the complainant from an altogether different connection No. KW-08/1205 allegedly in the name of her deceased husband Girdhari Lai who had expired way back on the 24th of April, 1985. It was the case that the purported amount pertained originally to the electric connection for House No. 550, B.C. Bazar, which was entirely a different and separate premises in which her deceased husband ran a shop which was lying closed ever since his death. The relief of a direction that the amount be not recovered from her and compensation was sought. On notice being issued, the appellants conceded that the challenged amount has been transferred from the account of the deceased Girdhari Lal who was having a commercial connection at 550, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. The said connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of dues and further an other account No. KW 8/1205 was also in the name of the deceased Girdhari Lal. The gravamen of the stand was that the respondent being one of the legal heirs or the wife of the deceased Girdhari Lai was liable for the amount and the appellant-Board was entitled to transfer the alleged liability of her husband on to her.

In support of her case, the complainant Smt. Vidyawanti stepped into the witness-box to support her case to the hilt and was cross-examined at some length without eliciting anything meaningful in. favour of the appellants. In rebuttal Manjit Singh deposed on behalf of the appellants and was cross-examined in depth which left gaping holes in the case projected by the Board.

THE District Forum on a consideration of the material noticed that the core of the matter was whether the appellant-Board could compel recovery from the respondent for a sum due not at all by her, but by her deceased husband. It further found that admittedly no notice whatsoever was given to the respondent for the purported transfer of liabilities. It came to the conclusion that not a single rule, regulation or instruction could be pointed out which warranted that the arrears of electric charges due from one consumer may be transferred to the account of another. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were restrained from making the recovery and compensation to the tune of Rs. 500/- was awarded. Mr. Ram Kishan, the authorized representative of the appellant despite his persistence could lay no meaningful challenge to the considered order of the District Forum. It was somewhat half-heartedly argued that the respondent had given an affidavit that she will indemnify the Board for loss caused in any manner to the meter or other electric equipment. The stand was that the appellant Board had the power to transfer the liabilities of one consumer on to another or in the alternative the respondent was liable as one of the heirs of the deceased Girdhari Lal.

WE are afraid that there is not the least modicum of merit in the submission aforesaid. It is writ large on the record that the respondent''s electric connection is with regard to the residential premises at 119, B.C. Bazar, Arnbala Cantt. It had a separate and distinct number of its own. On be half of the respondent Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate had firmly pointed out that the commercial premises at House No. 550, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. were far removed from the residential premises of the respondent. Equally the electricity connection there was a separate one and in the name of the deceased husband of the respondent who had died more than seven years ago. It is also the appellant''s own stand that the said connection was disconnected for non-payment of dues, thus clearly suggesting that the electricity charges had accrued against Girdhari Lai alone. In this context, even when pin-pointed Mr. Ram Kishan could advance not the least argument as to how the appellant-Board was entitled to transfer the alleged arrears of a deceased-consumer with regard to an altogether different and distinct electric connection located at different premises on to the respondent. Mr. Ram Kishan''s reliance on the alleged affidavit of the respondent is equally vain. A reading thereof makes it manifest that this pertains purely to the electric connection at 119, B.C. Bazar, Arnbala Cantt. and the indemnity to the Board was with regard to the meter or other electricity equipment of the said connection. One fails to see how the affidavit can be stretched for anomni bus liability of the respondent for the alleged long standing dues of her husband. Apart from the above the lie direct to the appellant''s case has come from the mouth of their own witness Shri Manjit Singh. In his cross-examination he had to fairly make concessions which are wholly destructive of the appellant''s case and deserve notice in extenso : - "I have not brought record as to when the connection of Gridhari Lai in his shop No. was disconnected, I am not in possession of record as to which billing cycle the said amount related to. It is wrong to suggest that this amount related to 1983. I have not brought the PDCO No. when the connection of the shop of Girdhari Lai was disconnected. It is correct that we cannot recover the amount preceeding to last 6 years, because limitation for recovery of dues is 6 years."

APART from the above, which by itself is conclusive a against the appellants it appears that on their own showing the respondent is not the sole legal heir of her husband. It appears to be common ground that he had son or sons apart from his widow. In this situation, the facile plea that the respondent was wholly liable as a heir of the deceased Girdhari Lai is equally without any foundation.

LASTLY what deserves highlighting is that admittedly not the least notice was given to the respondent with regard to the alleged transfer of the sizeable dues to the tune of more than Rs. 14,000/- on to her. No opportunity to show cause or render any explanation on her part was afforded. The District Forum rightly took an adverse inference against the appellant on this added score as well. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.