SUKHBIR SINGH BEHL vs Delhi Vidyut Board

THE complaint of the appellant seeking restoration of the electricity connection which was disconnected by the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.1994 on the ground that these are such disputed facts which cannot be decided in summary proceedings and need oral evidence of the parties as well as cross-examination of witnesses by the parties.

FEELING aggrieved of the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal. On face of it the facts are so simple that the complaint should have been decided by the District Forum on merit. One Shri Bhagwan Dass was the previous owner of the shop who tried to get the possession of the shop by the orders of Civil Court but the matter being sub-judice the possession could not be given to Shri Bhagwan Dass. In the review application one Shri Baldev Raj came forward to resist Shri Bhagwan Dass from taking the possession of the said shop. However, there were two separate electric connections, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor of the property. The electricity connection of the first floor was disconnected. The appellant purchased the whole property and subsequently applied for new connection vide application dated 12.2.1986 by depositing the amount of Rs. 600/-. At the same time he also applied for transfer of electricity connection on ground floor in his name and deposited arrears of Rs. 9,493.60. Neither was the connection of the first floor restored nor was the connection of the ground floor transferred.

According to the respondent the connection of the first floor was not restored because it was likely to be used for office purpose and the appellant failed to submit the No Objection Certificate as per rules and so far as the transfer of the connection of ground floor in his name is concerned the respondent took the plea that the electricity was found to be misused by the predecessor of the respondent.

PERUSAL of the record and the impugned order shows that an amount of Rs. 9,493.60 was towards the electricity dues in respect of electricity connection on the ground floor and since these dues had already been paid by the appellant there was no reason for the respondent in not transferring the electricity connection in the name of the appellant as every subsequent purchaser of the property has a right to get the connection transferred in his name. Though it is not the liability of the subsequent purchaser of the property to clear the arrear due from the previous owner as it is the actual consumer who has the liability to pay unless there is some agreement at the time of sale of property regarding the discharge of the liability of the previous owner by the subsequent owner. Still the fact remains that the appellant had paid the arrears of the previous owner. In these circumstances there was no other option open to the respondent than to transfer the electricity connection of the ground floor in the name of the appellant. So far as the restoration of the connection on the first floor is concerned, the appellant has now furnished the "No Objection Certificate" and there should be no difficulty on the part of the respondent to restore it. Mere apprehension that the premises would be used for the office purpose cannot be the ground for non-restoration of the disconnected connection. If the consumer is found to be misusing the electricity, the respondent is entitled to recover the misuse charges and take any other action available under the rules.

IN the result, we allow the appeal with the direction to the respondent to restore the electricity connection of the first floor and transfer the electricity connection of the ground floor in the name of the appellant within one month. The FDR if any deposited by the appellant be refused forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal allowed.