Delhi

StateCommission

A/07/682

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anshu Singh, W/o R.P. Singh - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:24.10.2016

First Appeal No. 682/2007

(Arising out of the order dated 21.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1600/2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum X Udyog Sadan C-22 & 23 Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Nehru Place

New Delhi                                            .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Anshu Singh

W/o Sh. R.P.Singh

R/o Z-20, Hauz Khas

New Delhi-110016                                  ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 21.07.2007 passed by the Ld. District Forum X Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-110016.  Vide impugned orders the appellant/OP (BSES) was directed to provide electricity connection to the respondent/complainant within a period of 10 days of the orders. Beside this, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- inclusive of costs of litigation was also awarded to the complainant. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the complaint.
2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the respondent/complainant applied for a fresh electricity connection on 09.09.2003 and deposited an amount of Rs. 1700/-. In her application she mentioned the address of her flat/plot as 118/14-A Gautam Nagar New Delhi. Despite her efforts, she was not provided electricity connection. She also approached Customer Grievance Cell BSES Nehru Place New Delhi. She also met senior officials and ran from pillar to post.
3.         Defence raised by the OP was that its officials inspected the premises in question and found an electricity connection bearing K.No. 2551L3061861 with meter No. 13388052 already installed. The policy of the appellant/OP did not permit to provide another connection when one connection was already available.
4.         The short controversy that arises in the matter is in relation to the municipal No. of the premises. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/OP Sh. Arav Kapoor Advocate had taken this Commission through the application of the complainant and the documents filed by her in support of her title of the premises. Application for fresh connection shows the municipal number as 118/14-A whereas the titled documents bore the number as 118/13. Be that as it may, admittedly the appellant/OP never informed the complainant of the aforesaid difficulty faced by its official in providing a fresh connection.
5.         Ld. District Forum appointed a local commissioner to visit the premises. Local commissioner had reported that the flat in question was located in a building which had 10 flats in it. It was also found by the local commissioner that the flat occupied by the complainant did not have any electricity connection whatsoever. With a littlediligence, the official of the appellant/OP on its visit could have found that the flat in question was never provided with any electricity connection. He did not make any effort to contact the complainant. As discussed above, the OP did not take the pains of informing the complainant of its inability to provide electricity connection due to the controversy of the municipal number or an electricity connection already available there. The lapse on the part of the OP caused harassment and inconvenience to the respondent/complainant.  Ld. Trial Forum had rightly allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
6.         Before parting it may be mentioned here that Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/OP Sh. Arav Kapoor Advocate argued that the Ld. District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-whereas the complainant herself had prayed for a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. Perusal of the complaint and the orders impugned, shows that the complainant had sought grant of litigation charges besides compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. Ld. District Forum has awarded the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation as well as litigation charges. The plea thus is of no avail to the OP. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
7.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)