AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 14-06-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 1783 of 2010 - U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Som Parkash Bawa, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent has obtained electricity connection from opposite party/petitioner at Village Kheri Sadh (Rohtak) and he was paying charges regularly. In August, 2008 in his electricity connection Rs.1,21,000/- were included illegally. Inspite of queries, it was not apprised on what basis demand was raised. It was further submitted that in bill of October, 2008, Rs.1,24,625/- were included without any purpose. Complainant approached opposite party to provide copy of letter for charging aforesaid amount but that was not provided. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that as per report of Sarpanch complainant''s plot is out of Lal Dora and as per instructions of S.E., commercial, development charges are recoverable @ Rs.25/- per sq. yd. of plot size and demand was made rightly in the bill and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to charge development charges on the constructed area of 46.5 x 12.3 sq. yds. @ Rs.25/- per sq. yd. and refund remaining amount if any along with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of sales circulars, opposite party rightly demanded amount on the basis of plot size of the consumer but learned District Forum committed error in allowing levy of charges only on the constructed area and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing revision petition on the ground that delay occurred in taking steps at various levels and in getting matter approved from various levels for filing revision petition. As there is delay of 106 days in filing revision petition in the light of latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court - (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 - Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 - A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India , (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 - Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. , by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned. I deem it appropriate to allow application for condonation of delay and condone delay subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the Respondent.
It is not disputed that opposite party by sales circular no. 15/2000 dated 20-04-2000 allowed levy of Rs.15/- per sq. yd. for plot holders having plot size up to 100 sq. yd. and Rs.25/- per sq. yd. for plot size exceeding 100 sq. yds. in the unauthorized colonies for release of regular connection. Same rate was affirmed by sales circular no. 21/2000 dated 11-05-2000 and by this sales circular additional amount for commercial and industrial load was authorized. These rates were further affirmed by sales circular no. 41 of 2004 dated 29-10-2004.
The core question to be decided in this revision petition is whether development charges are to be recovered on the size of constructed area or on the plot size on which connection has been taken. Learned State Commission observed as under:-- "Learned District Forum has allowed the Ops to charge development charges only with respect to the constructed area. Since, the sale circular is silent; it has to be interpreted in a manner which is more beneficial to the consumer. Learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No ground to interfere in the impugned order.
Learned State Commission upheld order of District Forum on the basis that sales circular is silent and so it is to be interpreted which is more beneficial to the consumer. I do not find any ambiguity in the sales circular. All the sales circulars clearly show that Rs.15 / 25 is to be charged per sq. yd. for plot holders having plot size up to 100 sq. yd. and above 100 sq. yds. respectively. Nowhere sales circulars say that amount is to be charged as per constructed area. In such circumstances, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint partly and directing opposite party to charge on the basis of constructed area instead of plot area and learned State Commission further committed error in upholding order and revision petition is to be allowed.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 14-06-2012 passed by the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 1783 of 2010 - U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Som Parkash Bawa and order of District Forum dated 22-09-2010 passed in Complaint No. 601/2008 - Som Parkash Bawa Vs. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.