Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Mona Kaushik v. Chief Engineer DHBVN

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Jun 2, 2023

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Summary of Final Order — District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (Decided 02-06-2023)

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary is drawn exclusively from the provided Final Order dated 02-06-2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda in Complaint Case No. CC/21/22 (filed 13-01-2021). The complainant is Mona Kaushik (W/o Manjeet Kaushik), proprietor of House No. 3144 (MIG), Sector-13, New Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani (Haryana). The opposite parties are the Chief Engineer, DHBVN, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and an S.D.O. (Operational Sub Division No.01 city (DHBVN) Bhiwani).

Relevant factual assertions by the complainant: property ownership chain culminating in her purchase by sale deed No. 5933 dated 30-08-2012; an electricity meter (No. HBID-0526) originally installed in the name of Lakhi Ram; a bill (No. 805 dated 22-07-2013) demanding Rs. 40,952/-, of which Rs. 36,379/- was claimed to be “sundry charges” related to alleged fraud/embezzlement (attributed to the earlier period 2009-2010 and to the Hartron Billing Agency). The complainant alleges she paid consumption charges after becoming owner and disputed the sundry charges as belonging to earlier owners/defaulters.

Procedural history reflected in the order: - A consumer commission order directing restoration of supply was issued on 19-09-2013 (as alleged by the complainant). - The complainant later moved out of Bhiwani and a related consumer complaint before the Bhiwani Forum was dismissed in default on 11-05-2017. - The complainant applied for new electricity connections (applications dated 01-02-2019, 29-10-2020 and 30-12-2020) but those applications were rejected by the opposite parties, allegedly because of a defaulting amount (recorded by the opposite parties as Rs. 82,958/-). - The present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was filed before the Bathinda Commission on 13-01-2021. - The opposite parties initially filed a written reply (through AR) raising preliminary objections, but subsequently did not appear and proceedings were taken ex parte against them. - The complainant produced an affidavit dated 11-11-2021 (Ex. C-16) and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the present complaint filed on 13-01-2021 is maintainable or is barred by limitation, given the earlier dismissal in default on 11-05-2017 and the Commission's reference to a prescribed period of two years.
Preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties: whether the complainant has locus standi and whether the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed at Bathinda when the matter arises out of events in Bhiwani (Haryana).
Merits-related contention raised by the complainant that there was deficiency in service by the opposite parties (disconnection of supply and refusal to sanction a new connection) and that the disputed sundry charges pertain to earlier defaulters and not to the complainant.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

The complainant asserted that she acquired ownership of House No. 3144 by sale deed dated 30-08-2012 and thereafter paid all power consumption bills relevant to her period of ownership.
She contested a bill dated 22-07-2013 for Rs. 40,952/-, particularly the component of Rs. 36,379/- characterized as "sundry charges" which she contends relate to fraud/embezzlement in 2009-2010 and thus are not her liability.
She alleged wrongful disconnection of power and uprooting of the meter by the opposite parties after a prior consumer order; she sought directions to restore/sanction a new power connection and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,33,000/-.
The complainant produced documentary evidence and an affidavit (affidavit dated 11-11-2021, Ex. C-16; documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15) in support of her case.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

Preliminary objections: the opposite parties contended that the complaint is false, frivolous and without cause of action; not maintainable; the complainant lacks locus standi; and the Bathinda Commission lacks jurisdiction as the dispute pertains to Bhiwani (Haryana).
They pointed out that a prior consumer complaint titled "Smt. Mona Kaushik Versus DHBVN" (CC-187/2014) before DCDRF, Bhiwani was dismissed in default (as pleaded).
On merits, they stated the meter had been removed due to an outstanding/defaulting amount (recorded as Rs.82,958/- against meter/account HB1D-526), bills serve as notice of outstanding dues, and applications for new connections were rejected pending clearance of the defaulting amount; the office communicated this position by memo No.4911 dated 25-01-2021.
The opposite parties stated that any bogus postings by the then billing agency Hartron were subject of an FIR and were under adjudication, and that compliance will follow court decisions; they therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis, as stated in the order, focused principally on procedural/limitation considerations rather than adjudicating the merits. The reasoning proceeded as follows:

The Commission recorded the admitted fact that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint which was dismissed in default on 11-05-2017 (before the Bhiwani Forum).
The present complaint was filed on 13-01-2021 — more than three years after the earlier dismissal.
The Commission observed that the prescribed period for filing such complaints is two years and that the complainant had not filed any application for condonation of delay nor provided any explanation for the three-year delay beyond the two-year period.
Given the absence of any application to condone delay and the substantial delay beyond the prescribed two-year period, the Commission stated there was no need to proceed to the merits of the case.
Thus, on that procedural ground (limitation/time-bar), the Commission dismissed the complaint.

Additional procedural notes recorded in the order: opposite parties initially filed a written reply but did not appear at hearing, resulting in ex parte proceedings; the complainant had tendered documentary evidence and affidavit; and the Commission noted that the complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases (an administrative remark regarding delay in disposing the matter).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Commission DISMISSED the complaint being time-barred.

Implications:

Direct effect: The complainant's application/complaint filed on 13-01-2021 was dismissed on the ground of limitation (filed more than three years after the previous dismissal and without seeking condonation of delay), and therefore no relief was granted to the complainant by this Commission on the merits.
No broader legal precedent or new principle of law was articulated in the order; the decision is founded on the application of the limitation period (the Commission's statement of a "prescribed period of two years") and the absence of any condonation application. The order expressly states the Commission did not go into merits because of the procedural bar.

Order announced on 02-06-2023 by Lalit Mohan Dogra (President) with Shivdev Singh (Member). Copy to be sent to parties and the file consigned to the record room (as per the order).

Show all summary ...

Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, Court Room No.19, Block-C,Judicial Court Complex, BATHINDA-151001 (PUNJAB)

PUNJAB

Complaint Case No. CC/21/22 ( Date of Filing : 13 Jan 2021 )

1. Mona Kaushik #283 Kamala Nehru Nagar, Bathinda ...........Complainant(s) Versus

1. Chief Engineer DHBVN Vidyut Nagar Hisar ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh MEMBER PRESENT:In Person, Advocate for the Complainant 1 Dated : 02 Jun 2023

Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C.No. 22 of 13-1-2021 Decided on : 02-06-2023

Mona Kaushik W/o Sh. Manjeet Kaushik S/o Sh. Mahabir Prasad #283, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Bathinda (Punjab) 151001.

........Complainant Versus

Chief Engineer, DHBVN Vidyut Nagar Hisar (Haryana)1. S.D.O (Sh. Ankit Kamboj) Operational Sub Division No.01 city (DHBVN) Bhiwani (Haryana).

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Varun Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite parties Ex-parte.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

The complainant Mona Kaushik (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Chief Engineer and anther (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Manjeet Kaushik S/o Sh. Mahabir Prasad is the permanent resident of #283 Kamala Neheru Nagar Bathinda (Punjab) 151001. The House No.3144 (MG.) Sector-13 New housing board colony Bhiwani was owned & possessed by Lakhi Ram son of Beg Raj resident of Haluwas Gate, Bhiwani District Bhiwani (haryana) through quince deed serial No.5264 dated 11-10-2007. The oposite parties had installed electric meter No. HBID-0526 in the name of said Lakhi Ram son of Beg Raj in the above said house. The said Lakhi Ram son of Beg Raj sold the said house #3144

to Gulshan Sehgal son of Ram Parkash resident No. 3170, (M.I.G.) Sector-13 New housing bord coloney Bhiwani through sale deed No. 2261 dated 25-06- 2008, who was residing there and was the owner of this house during that period of 2009-2010 and who is presently residing in house No. 2974, (M.I.G.) Sector-

13 New housing board colony, Bhiwani. It is alleged that the above said Gulsan Seghal also sold the above house to Anita Rani wife of Shankar Lal son of Om Parkash, resident of 239 Jain Chowk, Bhiwani through registered sate deed No.6838 dated 12-08-2011. That Anita Rani wife of Shankar Lal, resident of House No.239, Jain chowk Bhiwani, sold the above said house No.3144 sector 13 Bhiwani to the complainant wife Smt. Mona Kaushik W/o Manjeet Kaushik who is parmanent resident of Manheru District Bhiwani (Haryana) through sale deed No. 5933 dated 30-08-2012 and since then the complainant is the owner of said house and house is in his possession.

It is alleged that the opposite parties sent bill No.805 Dated 22-07-2013 for the month of July 2013 in the sum of Rs.40,952/- to the complainant as detailed below:-

a. Energy charges... Rs.3682/-

b. Electrical Duty.........Rs. 0072/-

c. Municipal Tax.........Rs. 0036/-

d. FSA charges............Rs. 0783/-

e. Sundry Charges Rs. 36,379/-

f. Total charges Rs.40,952/- An amount Rs. 36,379/- mentioned in the said bill as sundry charges pertains to the amount of fraud/embezzlement held in the office of the opposite parties during 2009-2010 by Hartron Billing Agency (Bogus posting by his employee) as per information given under RTI.

It is further alleged that after taking the possession and ownership of the above said house, the complainant deposited all the payments of the bills of power consumption. The opposite parties refused to receive the amount of consumption without amount of aforesaid Sundry Charges/the amount of fraud/embezzlement

but the complainant was not liable to pay the same. If the opposite parties have to recover the said amount that was to be recovered from Gulshan Sehgal son of Ram Parkash Seghal resident of house No. 3170, (M.I.G.) Sector-13 New housing board colony Bhiwani the previous owner of this house. The amount of fraud/embezzlement of bogus posting done by the Hartron Billing Agency & employees of department should be recovered from the defaulters of that relevant time.

It is also alleged that the complainant has paid her due amount in time as per consumption of power units after becoming the owner of this house No. 3144. There was nothing pending shown by the opposite parties in her bill from 30-06- 2012 as the previous balance was NIL. There was nothing pending shown by the department in this period of one year (30-06-2012 to 30-06-2013). The disputed amount of fraud/embezzlement pertains to the period 2009-10 and at that time, the complainant was not owner of this house. Rather one Guishan Sehgal son of Ram Parkash Seghal resident of house No. 3170, (M.I.G.) Sector-13 New housing board colony Bhiwani was the owner and meter was in the name of Lakhi Ram son of Beg Raj resident of Haluwas Gate, Bhiwani District Bhiwani (Haryana). The complainant had represented in written to the opposite parties to correct and set aside the said bill but they paid no heed to the request of the complainant and power was disconnected by them.

The complainant alleged that the power connection of electricity of this house 3144 was disconnected by the opposite parties wrongly against law and facts. Smt.Mona Kaushik w/o Manjeet Kaushik filed complaint in Consumer Commission for immediate relief and Consumer Commission issued order on dated 19-09-2013 with directions to the opposite parties to restore the power supply. The complainant was also directed to pay the electricity bills regularly for the power consumed by her.

The complainant further alleged that due to some family problem, she shifted her family from Bhiwani (Haryana) to Bathinda (Punjab) and could not puruse the case, due to which Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint due to non- appearing on 11-05-2017. The opposite parties soon after the above decision, disconnected the power supply and uprooted the meter without any intimation and without any notice out of rules and against law and facts. Smt. Mona Kaushik W/o Manjeet Kaushik applied for electricity connection for this #3144

(M.I.G.) Sector-13 New housing board colony Bhiwani (a). Applied vide Application No.B11-219-18 on dated 01-022019 paid Rs.4775/-.

(b). Applied vide Application No.B11-1020-311 on dated 29-10-2020 paid Rs. 4315/-.

(c). Applied vide Application No.B11-1220-591 on dated 30-12-2020 paid Rs.4825/-

The opposite parties have rejected all the applications of new connection without any comments and without explaining any reason for cancellation. Accordingly, complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to sanction new power connection at aforesaid House at Bhiwani and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,33,000/-.

Upon notice, opposite parties put an appearance through Sh. Sunil Chahal, AR and filed joint written reply but thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. However, in written repoy, opposite parties raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is absolutely wrong, full of false particulars, against law and facts. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus standi and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The matter in dispute pertains to Bhiwani (Haryana) whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint before District Commission at Bhatinda (Punjab). That the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and she has suppressed the true and material facts.

10.

It has been pleaded that true facts of the case are that the complainant has earlier filed a consumer complaint titled 'Smt. Mona Kaushik Versus DHBVN' consumer complaint No.CC-187/2014 before DCDRF, Bhiwani (Haryana) pertaining to same dispute and the same was dismissed in default.

11.

It has also been pleaded that meter account No.HB1D-526 is issued in the name of Lakhi Ram son of Sh. Beg Raj resident of House No.3144, Sector 13, HUDA Bhiwani (Haryana) having defaulting amount as per office record Rs.82,958/-.

12.

The connection was disconnected on account of defaulting amount. The consumer had applied to this office for new connection vide application No.B11/1220-591 dated 30.12.2020, B11-219-18 dated 01.02.2019 and B11- 1020-311 dated 29.10.2020. The applications for new connection were rejected due to pending of defaulting amount Rs.82,958/-. The information has also been given to the complainant vide this office memo No.4911 dated 25.01.2021. The connection will be released by this office as and when the defaulting amount is clear/ paid by the consumer. Now the complainant claims on behalf of consumer that she had paid the defaulting amount but there is no record of payment found in this office in this regard against this account number. This office has already submitted a reply under RTI Act, 2005 desired by the complainant stating that bogus posting might have been posted by the then billing agency Hartron against which FIR has also been lodged by the Nigam for posting the wrong amount in many consumer accounts. Now the case is in the adjudiction of Court and compliance of the Court decision will be made by this office. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint only with a malafide intention to harass and humiliate the opposite parties otherwise there is no substance in the complaint filed by the complainant.

On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that meter of the complainant was removed vide PDCO by Nigam official against the outstanding amount. The defaulting amount is mentioned in the bill issued to the complainant and bill itself is a notice to the consumer. The complainant did not deposit the current bills regularly, therefore, the connection was disconnected in year 2017 due to pending defaulting amount and applications for new connection were rejected due to pending of defaulting amount Rs.82,958/-. The information has also been given to the complainant vide this office memo No.4911 dated 25.01.2021. The connection will be released by this office as and when the defaulting amount is clear/ paid by the consumer. In further reply, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13.

In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 11.11.2021 (Ex. C-16) and documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15).

14.

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had 15.

purchase House No. 3144 (MIG) Sector 13, New Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani from Anita Rani vide Sale Deed dated 30-08-2012. The original owner of said house was one Lakhi Ram S/o Beg Raj. It is further argued that opposite parties sent a bill No. 805 dated 22-7-2013 for the month of July, 2013 and demanded Rs. 40,952/- from the complainant. It is also argued that said amount was not payable by the complainant and was infact to be recovered from original owner Lakhi Ram. It is further argued that complainant then being resident of Bhiwani had approached Consumer Commission, Bhiwani and the opposite parties were directed to restore the power supply to the house of the complainant. Due to some family problem, complainant shifted from Bhiwani to Bathinda and complaint was dismissed in default on 11-5-2017. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has requested for directions to the opposite parties to restore electric connection of her house situated at Bhiwani.

We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.16. This Commission is of the view, without going into merits of the case that it is admitted fact that complainant earlier filed by complaint which was dismissed in default on 11-5-2017 and the present complaint has been filed by complainant before this Commission on 13-01-2021 i.e. after more than three years. Moreover, complainant has not moved any application for condonation of delay nor has assigned any reason as to why present complaint was filed after a delay of three years beyond prescribed period of two years. Accordingly, this Commission is of the view that there is no need to go into the merits of the case. Thus, this complaint is hereby dismissed being time barred.

17.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18.

Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced 02-06-2023

(Lalit Mohan Dogra)1.

19.

President (Shivdev Singh) Member

[HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra]

PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh]

MEMBER