Vikas Gupta , Rajiv Gupta vs Sub Divisional Officer , U H B V N

1.THE petitioners Vikas Gupta and Rajiv Gupta both are sons of the original complainant late Shri Jai Bhagwan. THEy have filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (''State Commission'' for short), Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No.670 of 2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed their appeal and upheld the order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind dismissing the complaint No.384 of 2010 filed by the late father of the two petitioners.

BRIEF facts of the case which are relevant for its disposal are that the petitioners'' father was a consumer of the respondents/opposite parties and was having an electricity connection (domestic) bearing No.PP -11/1058 for his residence. He had cleared all the dues in respect of this domestic connection and nothing was due against him, the last bill worth Rs.8042/ - having been deposited on 8.9.2010. The respondents issued a letter bearing memo No.850 dated 25.8.2010 vide which they transferred a sum of Rs.2,15,710/ - which was outstanding in another account bearing No.LS -14 in the name of M/s B.R. Spintex Pvt. Ltd. in the account of the complainant. Treating this as an illegal act on the part of the respondent, the said Shri Jai Bhagwan challenged the memo before the District Forum by filing the consumer complaint in question. It was averred that M/s B.R. Spintex Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity which was having a commercial connection from the respondents/opposite parties and as such the unit account of this company had no concern with the residential meter account of the complainant. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was alleged before the District Forum and it was prayed that the complaint be accepted and notice memo dated 25.8.2010 whereby a sum of Rs.2,15,710/ - had been transferred to the account of the complainant be adjudged as illegal and null and void and the same be set aside. It was also prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from disconnecting the power supply of the meter of the complainant along with award of compensation of Rs.50,000/ - by the opposite parties to the complainant. Upon notice, the opposite parties put in their appearance and filed their written statement in which they resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant himself had signed the documents as proprietor/authorized signatory through power of attorney of M/s B.R. Spintex Pvt. Ltd. and took sole liability of the alleged connection installed in the name of the complainant. It was further submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that before transferring the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,15,710/ - outstanding as arrears in the account No.LS -14 of the company to the account No.PP -11/1058 of the complainant, the complainant was duly informed through memo No.850 dated 25.8.2010 followed by memo No.1000 dated 4.10.2010 but the complainant did not file any reply to the aforesaid memos. As such, the amount due against the company had been transferred in the account of the complainant and he was legally liable to deposit the amount in question. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

BASED on the evidence adduced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioners in their capacity as the legal heirs of the original complainant, challenged it by filing an appeal before the State Commission which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order.

WE have heard learned Shri S.K. Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Fora below have committed grave mistake in ignoring the fact that the amount of arrears was in respect of the commercial connection No.LS -14 which was in the name of M/s B.R. Spintex Pvt. Ltd. which is a separate legal entity. No doubt that the late father of the petitioners had signed the documents for obtaining the commercial connection for the company as power of attorney on behalf of the company but that could not be taken to mean that the electricity connection of the company which is a private limited company could be regarded as his personal account which could entitle the respondents/opposite parties to transfer the amount of arrears belonging to the company to the personal account of the complainant under instruction No.179 of Sales Manual and recover the same from the complainant. He submitted that the late father of the petitioners who was a director of the company could not be treated as the same consumer as required in terms of the provisions of instruction No.179 of Sales Manual. He also submitted that even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the notices sent by the respondents were not replied to by the petitioners, it would not authorize the respondents to take an action which was prima facie illegal. He, therefore, submitted that impugned orders of the Fora blow cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are required to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and pleaded that the same deserve to be confirmed. It is not under dispute that the late father of the petitioners had signed the documents in connection with the electric connection No.LS -14 for and on behalf of the company as its director and authorized signatory. However, it would be wrong and against the provisions of law to treat the petitioners'' father as an individual having a separate domestic connection on the same footing as the signatory on the documents for and on behalf of the separate legal entity. Even if the complainant did not reply to the two memos issued by the opposite parties, the OPs ought to have proceeded to recover the dues outstanding against the company in accordance with the procedure laid down for recovery of such dues from the complainant as a separate legal entity. The respondents obviously committed a mistake in mixing up the two separate accounts which happened to be held by the same person but in different legal capacity. As such the action was prima facie illegal and null and void. The Fora below obviously committed grave mistake in ignoring this legal position by treating the original complainant as the sole proprietor of a private limited company while dismissing the complaint of the petitioners. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders of the Fora below. We further set aside the notice under memo No.850 dated 25.8.2010 whereby the amount of Rs.2,15,710 had been transferred by the respondents in the account of the petitioners. We also direct that the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/ - to the petitioners as compensation for the agony and harassment suffered by them in addition to cost of Rs.10,000/ - for the legal proceedings undertaken by them against the impugned action of the respondents. Payment of these amounts shall be made within a period of four weeks failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay 9% interest for the period of delay.

REVISION petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions.