DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs KEWAL KISHORE ARORA

THE above mentioned appeal has been filed by the appellant-DVB assailing the impugned order dated passed by the District Forum -IV, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 38/98 entitled Shri Kewal Kishan Arora v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE appellant is supplying electricity to the respondent. THE respondent/complainant purchased a house on 17.6.1996 where the electric meter was already in existence. Prior to this period there were arrears of Rs. 8,880/- towards electricity bill. when respondent applied for transfer of meter in his name, appellant demanded the arrears of bill of electricity used by the previous owner. It is the case of the appellant that the prospective buyer is liable to pay the arrears of electricity bills of the electricity consumed by the previous owner. THE stand of the appellant before the District Forum was rejected hence this appeal. Rule 27(b) of conditions of supply of electricity of DESU provides that any person who takes over the premises where installation is in existence he has to enter into an agreement with an undertaking to deposit the necessary security failing which to do so will render supply liable to be disconnected without any notice. As is apparent from these provisions, the appellant could not have claimed arrears of bill of electricity consumed by the previous owner. Appellant was entitled to enter into an agreement with an undertaking with regard to deposit of necessary security, which is always refundable. The District Forum has rightly held that respondent was negligent in not getting the meter transferred in his name in accordance with rules. On finding the appellant guilty of deficiency in service in not getting the meter transferred, the District Forum rightly directed the appellant to prepare fresh bill from 17.6.1996 without late fee charges and liability of the respondent will be restricted to that amount. It was held by the District Forum that arrears prior to 17.6.1996 are recoverable from the previous registered consumer.

Rule 27(b) of condition of supply of DESU provides that the person who wants the transfer of meter in his name has to enter into an agreement and give undertaking to deposit the necessary security. Security does not mean nor does it include the previous arrears. Liability is always a contractual liability. No liability can be imposed on a prospective purchaser, which was not incurred by him. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act provides that liability of arrears of a previous contract cannot be put on subsequent purchaser of property. In M/s. Esha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, JT 1995 (2) SC 626 Supreme Court, has held that there can be no charge over property and the electricity authority cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability of the original defaulter against the third party who was a purchaser and sought reconnection. It was held that it was impossible to impose on purchaser a liability, which was not incurred by him, and law is inadequate to enforce the liability of the previous contracting party against the prospective purchaser. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal filed by the appellant is, accordingly, dismissed. However no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.