Electricity arrears and fresh connection: supplier may demand pro rata dues from a purchaser of sub-divided property.

A purchaser of a sub-divided plot is not personally liable for a predecessor's electricity arrears in the absence of privity of contract, because those dues do not create a charge on the premises. However, when seeking a fresh electricity connection, the supplier may impose a reasonable condition requiring pro rata payment of arrears relatable to the premises, especially where the supply code permits such allocation for legally sub-divided property. A voluntary payment made to secure the connection is not refundable merely because a later regulatory direction bars fresh demand, unless that order expressly provides refund or the relevant contingency for refund arises. The supplier's right to retain the amount was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supplier could insist on payment of arrears attributable to the previous occupier from a purchaser of a sub-divided plot as a condition for granting a fresh electricity connection. (ii) Whether the amount paid by the purchaser towards such arrears was liable to be refunded after a subsequent regulatory direction.

Issue (i): Whether the supplier could insist on payment of arrears attributable to the previous occupier from a purchaser of a sub-divided plot as a condition for granting a fresh electricity connection.

Analysis: A purchaser who has no privity of contract with the supplier is not personally liable to discharge the previous consumer's electricity dues, because such dues do not create a charge on the premises. However, when the purchaser seeks a fresh connection, the supplier is entitled to prescribe reasonable terms for supply, including payment of the outstanding dues relatable to the premises, especially where the supply code permits pro rata division of dues in the case of legally sub-divided property. Such a condition is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and is justified to prevent recovery evasion by defaulting consumers.

Conclusion: The supplier was entitled to demand pro rata payment of the arrears from the purchaser as a condition precedent for a fresh electricity connection.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid by the purchaser towards such arrears was liable to be refunded after a subsequent regulatory direction.

Analysis: The payment was made voluntarily to obtain the connection and before the regulatory order directing that no fresh demand be made once the original consumer furnished a bank guarantee. That order did not direct refund of amounts already received, and the payment was made pursuant to the purchaser's undertaking. In the absence of an express refund direction, the purchaser could not reclaim the amount merely because of the later order, though refund would arise if the original consumer is ultimately held not liable or clears the dues.

Conclusion: The amount was not liable to immediate refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the High Court's refund direction was set aside, restoring the supplier's right to retain the pro rata payment unless the contingency for refund arises.

Ratio Decidendi: While a purchaser is not inherently liable for a predecessor's electricity dues in the absence of privity of contract, the supplier may lawfully make clearance of pro rata arrears a reasonable condition for granting a fresh connection to sub-divided premises, and a voluntary payment made for that purpose is not refundable absent an express direction or contractual contingency.

---