SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5176

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani, President, C.M. Singh, Member
Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar – Respondent
SC/5/A/74/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Kumar Garg
For the Respondents: None

The subsequent payment of outstanding electricity arrears by a consumer validates the legality of the Recovery Certificate issued by the department, negating any claim of deficiency in service or illegality in the recovery process.

Headnote:The matter involves an appeal against the order of the District Commission which had cancelled a Recovery Certificate (R.C.) for electricity arrears and awarded compensation to a consumer who claimed his connection was disconnected in 2008. The appellant electricity department contended that the arrears were legitimate based on meter readings and computer-generated data. The primary issue was whether the issuance of the Recovery Certificate was illegal or constituted a deficiency in service. The court observed that the respondent subsequently paid the entire outstanding amount on 27.01.2023, which the court held as an admission that the R.C. was properly and legally issued. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is hereby set aside. Consumer complaint shall stand dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the consumer complaint regarding disputed electricity recovery and the district commission's initial ruling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. submission of evidence showing the respondent's subsequent payment of all outstanding dues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. payment of arrears validates the legality of the recovery certificate and negates claims of deficiency in service. (Para 9 , 10)
4. setting aside the lower commission's order and dismissing the consumer complaint. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

SC/5/A/74/2022 Executive Engineer, UPCL 10.07.2026
Jwalapur, Haridwar
Vs.
Sh. Rajkumar

SC/5/A/74/2022
Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division, Jwalapur, Foundary Gate
BHEL, Haridwar, Tehsil & District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Nitin Kumar Garg, Advocate)
…..Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Rajkumar S/o Ilamchand
R/o Village Sitapur Post Jwalapur
Tehsil & District Haridwar
(Through: None)
…..Respondent

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 86 of 2019 styled as Sh. Rajkumar Vs. Executive Engineer, UPCL, Electricity Distribution Division, Jwalapur, Haridwar, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed cancelling the disputed R.C. (paper No. 4/2) of Rs. 1,92,206/- and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation charges within a month from the date of judgment and order.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such that the complainant is a blind, illiterate and handicapped poor person. He lives in joint family alongwith his brothers and his daily works were conducted by his brothers. The complainant took an electricity connection No. 1227/693/1227049368 for the use of joint family after completing all the formalities and electricity bills were paid regularly by the complainant till the year 2008. It is further stated in the complaint that he was told by his brother that his electricity connection had become disconnected after completing all the formalities and after paying the last electricity bill. Since the year 2008 he was not using the said electricity connection and his brothers were also living separately since then. On dated 15.03.2018 a Tehsil employee came to the residence of the complainant and told him that a recovery certificate (R.C.) dated 18.02.2019 has been issued for the recovery of arrears of electricity bill charges. The complainant went to the office of Tehsil on dated 16.03.2019, but he was not heard. The opposite party was not ready to listen and consider the plea of the complainant, therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party filed its written statement alleging that the complainant was using the electricity connection No. 1227039368 instead of 1227049368. The complainant has himself admitted that the above electricity connection was functioned prior to the year 2008. It is further pleaded in the written statement that as per meter, the reading, 1012 unit was shown in the bill and the electricity bill was previously issued according to reading 903 of the prior bill, therefore, on dated 19.01.2008, an amount of Rs. 1,22,737/- was due / outstanding against the complainant. The complainant never paid any amount in respect to the electricity charges from 19.01.2008 to 08.01.2016, thus, the total outstanding amount comes as Rs. 1,74,657/- towards the complainant which was not paid till the date of filing written statement. The version of the complainant is incorrect that in the year 2008, the electricity connection was disconnected. The real fact of the case is as such that on dated 19.01.2008, an electricity bill of Rs. 1,22,737/- was sent to the complainant according to the meter reading and according to previous electricity bills. The complainant’s electricity connection was disconnected on account of not paying electricity charges t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top