inderjeet Alag Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15, section 14(1)(d) - case referred: 1995 (1) bc 529 (sc). comparative citation: 1998 (1) cpj 381a.p. chowdhri, president: 1. the appellant, who was complainant before district forum-ii, applied for and was sanctioned 90 hp industrial load and 5 kw industrial light load for her business concern m/s. ashu electricals india situated in a portion of building c-157, mayapuri, phase-ii, new delhi. the complainant deposited a sum of rs. 33,900/- besides a sum of rs. 1,350/- as security and installation and other charges on 31.5.1989 and desu, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, laid the necessary cables and installed the meter at the site. the meter was not energised and on enquiry, the complainant was informed that the meter cannot be supplied power until the complainant cleared dues amounting to rs. 3,29,367.79 outstanding against the landlord of the premises namely m/s. anandsons trade linkers, hereinafter referred to as m/s. anandsons, a partnership concern. aggrieved by the decision, the complainant preferred a complaint before the district forum. 2. the case was contested. on a consideration of the material before it, the district forum held that the complainant failed to establish that it was an independent entity and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal. 3. in the appeal, the case of the appellant is that the appellant is an independent entity having no nexus with the landlord and, consequently, the dues outstanding against the landlord cannot be recovered as a condition precedent to the release of the connection in its favour. detailed facts assailing various grounds pressed into service by the district forum in its order in support of its finding to the contrary have been set out in the grounds of appeal with supporting documents. no reply thereto has been filed by desu. on behalf of the complainant, a written note of arguments has been filed. on behalf of the respondent, we have heard mr. s.l. trisal, advocate. 4. there is no dispute between the parties that the decision of the appeal turns on the question whether the appellant has a close nexus with the landlord of the premises. in other words, the question to be seen is whether the appellant is a beneficiary under the defaulting consumer and the present arrangement has been devised to circumwent the payment of the arrears, sizeable as they are against the defaulting previous consumer. the following table brings out the significant facts with regard to separate registration number in the sales-tax department, mcd licence given to the two licensees and registration as small scale industrial unit at different points of time:sales-tax registrationmcd licence numbersmall scale industrym/s. ashu electricals indiano.31554 dated 18.12.196739/a/02912 dated 1.12.1988no. kb-565/a –––767/reg./api(njf)72 dated 4.12.1972 p.v.c. plantm/s. anandsons trade linkers47/873141/ 08 dated 26th december, 1973no.87372 dated 17.10.1985njf-375/a 832-1 regn. adi (w) 73 dated 29.11.1993with regard to the alleged arrears against m/s. anandsons a few facts are relevant and may be stated. the opposite party is stated to have carried out an inspection at the premises of m/s. anandsons on 3.2.1987 and it was found that the firm had installed excess load. as a result of the inspection the factory of m/s. anandsons was declared as lip instead of sip. a request was made by the said firm for re-inspection which was carried on 10.6.1987 when the connected load was found to be within sanctioned limit of 50 hp. the opposite party abandoned their claim based on the lip tariff and all subsequent bills are being raised on the basis of the unit being sip. however, the opposite party raised a bill on account of the previous three years on the basis of the alleged inspection dated 3.2.1987. m/s. anandsons have challenged the recovery in the civil court. the suit is still pending and the civil court has granted an injunction staying the dis connection and recovery of the sum of rs. 3,29,367.79. the stay order is continuing.5. all that could be pointed out was that smt. inderjeet alag, sole proprietor of m/s. ashu electricals india is the wife of mr. harbans singh, who is one of the partners in m/s. anandsons. assuming the said fact to be true it will not follow that the appellant is a beneficiary under m/s. anandsons. the appellant has placed on record receipts for the payment of rent of the portion of the premises no. c-157, mayapuri, phase-ii, new delhi. she has also placed on record documentary evidence to show the machinery purchased by her. she has been carrying on her business from 16/326, faiz road, karol bagh, new delhi. she wanted to expand the business by setting-up another unit in a portion of the premises at mayapuri. it was towards this effort that she applied for the industrial power in question. 6. mr. s. l. trisal relied on m/s. isha marbles etc. v. bihar state electricity board and anr. etc. i (1995) bc 529 (sc). the appellant in the said case was an auction purchaser u/sec. 29 of the state financial corporations act, 1951. after the purchase, the auction purchaser applied for electric connection. the high court construed section 24 of the electricity act and held that the auction purchaser was covered as being the 'occupier of the premises'. the appeal of the auction purchaser was allowed by the supreme court and it was held that whether the premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. the board cannot seek the enforcement of the contractual liability against a third party. the appeal of the auction purchaser was, accordingly, allowed. the aforesaid authority does not further me case of the respondent. on the contrary, it applies to the facts of the present case and, accordingly, therefore, we set aside the finding of me district forum that the complainant failed to show that it was not a beneficiary under the landlord. in our view, it was for the opposite party to establish that the complainant was beneficiary and had a close nexus with the landlord of the complainant, who was in arrears of a certain amount. 7. the matter can be viewed from another angle. admittedly, the civil court has stayed recovery of the arrears from m/s. anandsons as well as disconnection. the same cannot be made a ground for insisting payment from the complainant. 8. for these reasons, the appeal is allowed, order of the district forum is set aside. the respondent is directed to release the connection applied for by the complainant/appellant in accordance with law. it goes without saying that the appellant would comply with various formalities and further payment, if any, according to law before the connection is released. the respondent would inform in writing within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order as to further formalities, if any, and further payment to be deposited, if at all, by the complainant/ appellant and on such formalities and deposit being made to release the connection in question within the next following four weeks failing which the respondent would be liable to be proceeded with u/sec. 27. 9. the action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which has resulted in loss, inconvenience and mental agony to the appellant. in the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that payment of compensation of rs. 15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. we, accordingly, direct the opposite party, respondent herein, to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant besides taking action as laid-down in the preceding paragraph. a copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as district forum-ii. appeal allowed.

Judgment:

A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. The appellant, who was complainant before District Forum-II, applied for and was sanctioned 90 HP industrial load and 5 KW industrial light load for her business concern M/s. Ashu Electricals India situated in a portion of building C-157, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 33,900/- besides a sum of Rs. 1,350/- as security and installation and other charges on 31.5.1989 and DESU, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, laid the necessary cables and installed the meter at the site. The meter was not energised and on enquiry, the complainant was informed that the meter cannot be supplied power until the complainant cleared dues amounting to Rs. 3,29,367.79 outstanding against the landlord of the premises namely M/s. Anandsons Trade Linkers, hereinafter referred to as M/s. Anandsons, a partnership concern. Aggrieved by the decision, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Forum.

2. The case was contested. On a consideration of the material before it, the District Forum held that the complainant failed to establish that it was an independent entity and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

3. In the appeal, the case of the appellant is that the appellant is an independent entity having no nexus with the landlord and, consequently, the dues outstanding against the landlord cannot be recovered as a condition precedent to the release of the connection in its favour. Detailed facts assailing various grounds pressed into service by the District Forum in its order in support of its finding to the contrary have been set out in the grounds of appeal with supporting documents. No reply thereto has been filed by DESU. On behalf of the complainant, a written note of arguments has been filed. On behalf of the respondent, we have heard Mr. S.L. Trisal, Advocate.

4. There is no dispute between the parties that the decision of the appeal turns on the question whether the appellant has a close nexus with the landlord of the premises. In other words, the question to be seen is whether the appellant is a beneficiary under the defaulting consumer and the present arrangement has been devised to circumwent the payment of the arrears, sizeable as they are against the defaulting previous consumer. The following table brings out the significant facts with regard to separate registration number in the Sales-Tax Department, MCD Licence given to the two licensees and registration as Small Scale Industrial Unit at different points of time:

	Sales-Tax Registration	MCD Licence Number	Small Scale Industry
M/s. Ashu Electricals India	No.31554 dated 18.12.1967	39/A/02912 dated 1.12.1988	No. KB-565/A –––767/Reg./API(NJF)72 dated 4.12.1972 P.V.C. Plant
M/s. Anandsons Trade Linkers	47/873141/ 08 dated 26th December, 1973	No.87372 dated 17.10.1985	NJF-375/A 832-1 Regn. ADI (W) 73 dated 29.11.1993

5. All that could be pointed out was that Smt. Inderjeet Alag, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Ashu Electricals India is the wife of Mr. Harbans Singh, who is one of the partners in M/s. Anandsons. Assuming the said fact to be true it will not follow that the appellant is a beneficiary under M/s. Anandsons. The appellant has placed on record receipts for the payment of rent of the portion of the premises No. C-157, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi. She has also placed on record documentary evidence to show the machinery purchased by her. She has been carrying on her business from 16/326, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. She wanted to expand the business by setting-up another unit in a portion of the premises at Mayapuri. It was towards this effort that she applied for the industrial power in question.

6. Mr. S. L. Trisal relied on M/s. Isha Marbles Etc. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. Etc. I (1995) BC 529 (SC). The appellant in the said case was an auction purchaser u/Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. After the purchase, the auction purchaser applied for electric connection. The High Court construed Section 24 of the Electricity Act and held that the auction purchaser was covered as being the 'occupier of the premises'. The appeal of the auction purchaser was allowed by the Supreme Court and it was held that whether the premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of the contractual liability against a third party. The appeal of the auction purchaser was, accordingly, allowed. The aforesaid authority does not further me case of the respondent. On the contrary, it applies to the facts of the present case and, accordingly, therefore, we set aside the finding of me District Forum that the complainant failed to show that it was not a beneficiary under the landlord. In our view, it was for the opposite party to establish that the complainant was beneficiary and had a close nexus with the landlord of the complainant, who was in arrears of a certain amount.

7. The matter can be viewed from another angle. Admittedly, the Civil Court has stayed recovery of the arrears from M/s. Anandsons as well as disconnection. The same cannot be made a ground for insisting payment from the complainant.

8. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed, order of the District Forum is set aside. The respondent is directed to release the connection applied for by the complainant/appellant in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the appellant would comply with various formalities and further payment, if any, according to law before the connection is released. The respondent would inform in writing within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order as to further formalities, if any, and further payment to be deposited, if at all, by the complainant/ appellant and on such formalities and deposit being made to release the connection in question within the next following four weeks failing which the respondent would be liable to be proceeded with u/Sec. 27.

9. The action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which has resulted in loss, inconvenience and mental agony to the appellant. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct the opposite party, respondent herein, to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant besides taking action as laid-down in the preceding paragraph. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-II.

Appeal allowed.