Delhi

North East

CC/372/2013

Shri Ajeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S. POWER LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 372/13

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Ajeet singh S/o Bhuley Singh R/o V-277, Village Ghonda, Delhi.		Complainant
		Versus
		B.S.E.S.Y.P.L Through B.M .District Office, Yamuna Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi-53.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		24.12.2013
			DATE OF DECISION      :		15.07.2017

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

 

ORDER

 

1. Complainant is user of an electricity connection for domestic purposes, vide CA No. 101340715 and CRN          No. 1250105883, in the premises in question, in the name of Shri Bhuley Singh his father who has since expired. Whatever the bills issued by OP as per consumption have already been paid by him regularly. Last Bill dated 1.7.2013 was duly paid by him. Thereafter on 2.9.2013 he received an incorrect bill from OP showing 175 units and payable amounts of Rs. 70200.40p. This bill included some other charges while there were no such charges till he paid the last bill dated 1.7.2013.
2. On complaint to this incorrect bill OP has neither given receipt of complaint nor any satisfactory reply came from its side, even after complainant’s visits a number of times. Complainant and his family is feeling disturbed mentally, physically and economically while the bill is not corrected by OP despite complainant’s so many request and visits to it. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant has prayed for directions to OP to issue revised bill of actual consumption on this connection. He has also prayed for directions to OP not to disconnect the electricity supply till final disposal, beside compensation of                     Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- as litigation cost.
3. OP by filing its reply challenging the maintainability of complaint on the ground that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint being not a registered consumer of OP. The connection is in the name of Shri Bhuley Singh father of the complainant who has made no efforts to get the connection transferred in his name as per provisions of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations 2007. No cause of action ever arises against it.  Present case being covered under order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anees Ahmad dated 12.12.2011, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
4. On merits OP states that in the same premises there was another connection vide CA No. 101341071 in the name of Shri Ratan Singh alias Ranjeet Singh brother of the complainant which has since been disconnected. On that connection dues of Rs. 69390.70p pending. On 25.2.2013 on inspection in the premises of the complainant it was found that aforesaid Shri Ratan Singh has stealthily taken the supply of electricity in his premises, from the connection in question. Against which complainant was issued notices dated 5.4.2013 and 6.5.2013 thereby requiring to deposit outstanding dues failing which legal action for unauthorized use will be taken. But there was no reply/response from the complainant. Therefore the outstanding dues of Rs. 69,390/- were transferred to this connection as both connection are on the same premises which the complainant is liable to pay.
5.  In rejoinder to reply complainant denying all the defenses, raised by OP, states that he has very much a locus standi to file the present complaint being son of the connection holder. Regarding change of name complainant states that he approached officials of OP for change of name but they denied stating that being son and successor of registered consumer he need not to get the name changed. He has very much a cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP.
6. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of evidence and the documents relied upon.
7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
8. As per OP both the connections granted by OP in the name of late Shri Bhuley Singh father of the complainant as well as Shri Ajeet Singh alias Ranjeet Singh were on the same premises. Admittedly, there were no arrears on the connection in dispute. The arrears shown in bill dated 2.9.2013 are the dues of other connection in the name of brother of the complainant. The registered consumer of the connection in dispute was father of the complainant who has since expired and the connection has since not been transferred in the name of complainant.

Now the questions to be considered for disposal of this complaint are as to whether complainant who is not a registered consumer has a locus standi to file present complaint against the OP. Whether OP has any right to transfer the outstanding dues of another connection in the name of different person. If so as to what is the procedure to be adopted for transfer of outstanding dues on other connection and as to whether OP has followed that procedure or not in transferring of the same.  If yes as to whether complainant is liable to pay the same while he has regularly been paying the bills till 1.7.2013.

9. For this purpose going through the record we find that till 1.7.2013 when the last bill was issued by the OP there were no arrears/outstanding dues and it is only in the bill dated 2.9.2013 that other charges of Rs. 69,390.70p have been added in the bill. As per OP this outstanding is transferred on the complainant after adopting due procedure. But what is that procedure and how they adopted this procedure there is no document on record filed by the OP. Only documents placed on record by the OP in support of this contention are the photocopies of certain documents apparently being application for new connection in the name of Ranjeet Singh and the fee deposited and directions to the contractor for this connection by the predecessors of the OP. Going through these photocopies we find that these relate to premises number 164 of the same area and not premise number 227 where the connection in dispute is installed. We also find no bill issued by OP in respect of the other connection in the name of Shri Ranjeet Singh on which OP is claiming outstanding dues.
10. On the basis of above said findings it is very much clear that first of all the two connections concerned are not on the same premises. Neither they are in the name of same person. OP has failed to prove the dues if any on the other connection in the name of brother of the complainant. There is no document to show about the proceedings of recovery of outstanding dues against brother of the complainant. With respect to the allegation of OP that on inspection it was found that brother of the complainant has taken the supply in his premises stealthily from the connection in dispute, there is no inspection report or notice of the proceedings against the alleged theft. Thus, OP has also failed to prove the alleged theft. Therefore, the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Limited Vs Anees Ahmad is not applicable in the present case.
11. Thus in our considered view the bill dated 2.9.2013 issued by OP thereby including other charges of Rs. 69,390.70p is an invalid bill. The OP has no right to recover the outstanding of another connection that too of the other premises and in the name of another person, from the complainant. On the contrary complainant is very much covered under the definition of complainant being legal heir of the registered consumer. There is valid cause of action against OP and in favour of the complainant. The complaint has been made bonafide by the complainant who has come with clean hands. Complainant is regularly paying all the bills issued by OP on the connection in dispute, on which there are no pending dues. Thus OP has no right to recover dues of another connection from the complainant.
12. Therefore holding guilty, for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, to the OP we declaring, the alleged bill dated 2.9.2013 for an amount of Rs. 70,200/- for the period 3.6.2013 to 2.8.2013, as null and void, we               direct the OP:-

1. To issue a revised bill as per actual consumption of the connection having CA No. 101340715, in the premises of the complainant  after deleting other charges of Rs. 69,390.70p and without charging any LPSC/ interest thereon  ;and
2. To pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- ;and
3. To pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-

to the complainant.            

13. This order shall be complied within 30 days from today.   
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
15. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  15.07.2017) 

 

 

           

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member