Delhi

North East

CC/55/2020

Sh. Mahavir Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.55/20

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Mahavir Prasad, S/o Sh.Mange Ram, R/o J-29, Street No. 15 Kartar Nagar, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., (Through its Prinicpal Officers/Business Manager) Division office : NandNagri 66 KV Grid Sun-Stn Complex Tahirpur Grid, NandNagri Delhi 110093	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER  :

28.10.2020 12.04.2023 04.07.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having a electricity connection bearing CA No. 100059292 which is used for running a small scale “Atta Chakki” for earning his livelihood. The Complainant had been paying the electricitybills regularly.The particulars of sanctioned load & MDI etc. as per periodical bills raised by the Opposite Party are as under:

S.I	Period of billing	Sanctioned load	MDI
1.	3/1/18 to 1/2/18	24	32
2.	6/3/18 to 4/4/18	24	30
3.	3/5/18 to 2/6/18	23	13
4.	2/6/18 to 3/7/18	29	32
5.	3/7/18 to 2/8/18	29	31
6.	3/8/18 to 5/9/18	29	32
7.	6/9/18 to 3/10/18	29	32
8.	4/10/18 to 1/11/18	29	15
9.	2/11/18 to 4/12/18	29	13
10.	5/12/18 to 3/1/19	29	12
11.	4/1/19 to 2/2/19	29	13
12.	3/2/19 to 2/3/19	29	17
13.	3/3/19 to 4/4/19	29	15
14.	4/5/19 to 2/6/19	29	17
15.	3/6/19 to 1/7/19	31	16
16.	2/7/19 to 2/8/19	31	19
17.	3/8/19 to 3/9/19	31	21
18.	4/9/19 to 4/10/19	31	22
19.	5/10/19 to 4/11/19	31	19
20.	4/12/19 to 2/1/20	31	14
21.	3/1/20 to 2/2/20	31	16
22.	3/2/20 to 3/3/20	31	13
23.	4/3/20 to 3/6/20	31	14
24.	4/6/20 to 2/7/20	31	17
25.	3/7/20 to 4/8/20	31	15
26.	5/8/20 to 2/9/20	31	16

 

2. As per section14 (4) of “Delhi ElectricityRegulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standard) Regulations” for the purpose of revision of sanctioned load or contract demand as the case may be, the Opposite Party is obliged to issue a separate notice to the consumer about the proposed increase in sanctioned load. The said notice should contain the details of the exact readings in the consecutive billing cycles taken into consideration along with details of enhance security deposited for such increase in sanctioned load in accordance with Electricity Act 2003. The said security is to be deposited by the consumer within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. If the consumer fails to do so, the additional amount may be included in the next bill, indicating the reasons for such inclusion in the bill.It is the case of the complainant that as per the aforesaid regulations, the Opposite Party is also obliged to refund the security deposit on pro-rata basis in case the load is reduced. It’s the case that theOpposite Party is also obliged to issue a separate notice for upward or downward revision of sanctioned load which notice is liable to be issued by 31^st May of the financial year. No notice for upward revision can be issued thereafter. In case a notice for downward revision is not issued by 31^st May the Opposite Party is obliged to pay compensation to the affected consumer without prejudice to the right of consumer to reduce the load which shall be effective from 1^st July of the financial year. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party had failed to obey the aforesaid guidelines issued by the DERC as no notice was ever issued for the load enhanced from time to time in the present case. The Opposite Party had also failed to revise the sanctioned load downward on the basis of less consumption made by the Complainant especiallyw.e.f. 4/10/18 and had over-charged the complainant on account of Fixed Charges at the applicable rate, Surcharge and Pension Surcharge thereon. The Complainant made several visits to the office of Opposite Party but no heed had been paid by the Opposite Party except giving verbal assurance to redress the grievance. It is further submitted that recently the RegulatoryCommission had issued specific direction to the Opposite Party to reduce the Fixed Charges @50 % for certain period falling the Lockdown period due to Pandemic COVID 19. The complainant had sent a notice to the Opposite Party but no reply had been given. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to revise the electricity bills for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 on the basis of reduces MDI consumed by the Complainant, to refund the amount of security on the said reduction of sanctioned load on pro-rata basis, to given benefit of the recent directions issued by the DERC thereby reducing the Fixed Charges @ 50 % for the period falling the Lockdown due to COVID 19, to pay an compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

3. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. On merits the Opposite Party has denied the allegations of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partyand has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri. TarunSheelAnand, working as Commercial Officer of BSES YPL, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file.
8. The case of the Complainant is that as per section 17 (4) of Delhi ElectricityRegulatory  Commission, for the purpose of revision of sanctioned load or contractdemand (as the case may be ), the Opposite Party is required to be issued notice regarding the proposed increased in the sanctioned load. It is also the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party is also required to issue notice for upward or downward of revision of sanctioned load and such notice is to be issued by 31^st May of the financial year. It is also the case of the Complainant that for downward revision if the notice is not issued by 31^st May the Opposite Party is required to pay compensation to the affected consumer. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party has not complied with the provisions of the aforesaid Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is also the case of the Complainant that Regulatory Commission has issued specific direction to the Opposite Party to reduce the Fixed Charges @50 % for certain period falling the Lockdown period due to Pandemic COVID-19.
9. Issue was raised by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The case of the Complainant is that he is running the attachakki for earning his livelihood. This fact has not been controverted by the Opposite Party. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is running the attachakki for earning his livelihood and therefore the Complainant is a consumer within the definition Consumer Protection Act. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has not compliedwith the provision of section 17 (4) of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is important to note that neither in its written statement nor in the evidence this fact has been controverted specifically by the Opposite Party. Nor the Opposite Party has led evidence that it has complied with the provision of the aforesaid section. Therefore, the assertions made by the Complainant have to be believed.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to revise the electricity bill for the financialyear 2018 19, 2019-20, 2020-21 on the basis of reduced MDI consumed by the Complainant. It is further ordered that the Opposite Party shall refund the security amount to the Complainant on the basis of the said revision of the sanctioned load on pro-rata basis along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. The Opposite Party shall give benefit to the Complainant regarding the directions issued by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission reducing the fixed charges @ 50 % for the period falling the lockdown due to COVID 19. The Opposite Party shall pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant  on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
11. Order announced on 04.07.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)