Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.43 /2018
Gurdeep Singh son Shri Raj Kumar,
5-A/10880, Ground Floor, Front side,
WEA Block-5A, Sat Nagar Karol Bagh
New Delh-5 …Complainant
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd
Shankar Road, Rajender Nagar
New Delhi-110060 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 27.02.2018
Coram: Date of Order: 06 01.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1. (Case of complainant) - The complainant is resident of 5-A/10880, Ground Floor, Front Side, WEA Block-5A, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where electricity meter 11750277 vide CA. No. 100560481 is installed in the name of complainant. He has been paying the electricity bills regularly.
However, on 19.02.2018 he received a electricity bill of Rs. 25,580/-, in which the OP had shown and included arrears of Rs. 25,065.06p. The complainant went to the office of OP with request that he has no concern with the arrears of Rs.25,065.06p, however, he was threatened by the department to deposit the amount, failing which the electricity connection will be disconnected. Whereas, it was Shri Ram Sharan who was resident of 10880, Ground Floor, Gali No. 1, Sat Nagar, Balmiki Colony, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 and it is in the back side and its electricity connection CA. No. is 100574720. The complainant also written to BSES in this regard besides reply to show cause but they are not paying any heed. That is why the present complaint. Since, the complainant has been humiliated/ insulted and he seeks appropriate directions including to pay expense of Rs. 2,000/- in initiating the complaint. It is supported by his affidavit, the representations given to BSES, the electricity bill shown arrears of Rs. 25,064.06p, reply to show cause notice, other correspondence done with the OP and identity proofs.
2. (Case of OP)-The OP/ BSES Yamuna Power Limited opposed the complaint being without merit. Briefly, there were dues of Rs. 50,114.50p in respect of disconnected electricity connection CA. No. 100574720. The premises was inspected on 12.08.2016, 09.02.2017, 07.03.2017 and 12.08.2017, when it was discovered that CA. No. 100574720 had existed in the name of Ram Sharan at 5-A/10880, Ground Floor, Gali No. 1, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi and it was transferred to existing two connections bearing no. 10056081 in the name of Gurdeep Singh and CA. No. 151526903 in the name of Ms. Tanuja, equally for Rs. 25,057/- each. Moreover as per site inspection report submitted by MAPS/FE 12.08.2016, 09.02.2017, 07.03.2017 and 12.08.2017 that the beneficiaries of disconnected CA. No. 100574720 are Shri. Gurdeep Singh and Ms. Tanuja, it was confirmed by the neighbourers. Shri Gurdeep Singh is grandson of Shri Ram Sharan and Ms. Tanuja is daughter in law of Shri Ram Sharan. Since the dues were pending in respect of disconnected connection, that is why the complainant was given notices on 05.10.2016 and 08.06.2017 whereby he was asked to deposit the outstanding amount, failing which there will be legal action for unauthorized use of electricity/illegal extension of electricity. The outstanding amount of Rs.50,114.50p was transferred in equal ratio of Rs.25,057/- against the complainant Shri Gurdeep Singh and other connection in the name of Tanuja. Thus, complaint is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The reply is accompanied with due transfer of divisional energy bill in the name of Shri Gurdeep Singh and Ms. Tanuja, details physical verification report dated 12.08.2017 and show cause notice dated 05.10.2016.
3. (Evidence)- The complainant led evidence by filing his own affidavit on the pattern of the complaint along with documents. Evidence of his father Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Mallu Ram has been filed besides their identity proofs that complainant’s name is Gurdeep Singh, his father’s name is Shri Raj Kumar and his grandfather’s name is Shri Mallu Ram.
On the other side OP led its evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Srajan Mangal, Business Manager of BSES YPEL, the evidence is also replica of reply along with documents of verification/inspection report, notices, etc.
4.1 (Final hearing)-The complainant and the OP have filed their written arguments, their stand are rival to each other. The written arguments are blend of pleading and evidence.
4.2.The parties were given opportunities to make oral submissions. Sh. Pankaj Mohan, Advocate for complainant and Sh. Kritik Verma, an associate of Sh. Rishabh Raj Jain, Advocate for OP made the oral submissions.
4.3 It is relevant to mention that on 17.11.2023, the complainant filed copy receipt of deposited amount of Rs. 28,670/- that he had deposited the demanded amount, since he was being harassed and threatened for disconnection of electricity, the copy receipt was taken on file. The written arguments were also accompanied with copy of ration card to show name of complainant, name of his father is Sh. Raj Kumar and name of his grandfather is Sh. Mallu Ram apart from death certificate of Sh. Mallu Ram to emphasis the plea taken on the complaint.
5.1 (Findings)-The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the entire record, which comprises oral narrations, the facts gathered by the department of OP and documentary records.
5.2. The complainant has grievances that OP asked arrears of amount of the electricity bill of complainant by including arrear of Rs. 25,065/-, which were not pertaining to the consumption of his electricity connection having CA. No. 1005560481. The complainant was imposed arrear on the ground that he is grandson of erstwhile consumer Sh. Ram Sharan, but the complainant’s father is Sh. Ram Kumar and grandfather is Shri Mallu Ram, which also stand established from the Aadhar Card, Ration Card and other material on the file. It is also contended that OP claims Ms. Tanuja is daughter in law of erstwhile consumer Sh. Ram Kumar, it has not been established and complainant has no relation with Ms. Tanuja.
On the other side, the plea of OP is that the earlier electricity connection CA. No. 100574720 was in the name of Ram Sharan, there were arrears and the same were put to two live connections, one in the name of his son Gurdeep Singh and other in the name of Ms. Tanuja, this information was collected from the neighbourers.
The answer to this core and narrow controversy can be culled out from the evidence on record, the same is as follows:-
(i) The complainant has proved documentary record of his name, father’s name and his grandfather’s name. The complainant’s father also led his evidence. They have proved documentary record of identity proof of Aadhar Card, ration card etc that the name of complainant is Gurdeep Singh, his father is Sh. Raj Kumar and grandfather is ShrI Mallu Ram. In the light of documentary evidence proved by the complainant, there is no other documentary or contrary record by the OP that the complainant is grandson of previous consumer Sh. Ram Sharan (whose electricity connection was disconnected).
(ii) The OP relies upon verification report stated to have been prepared on the basis of oral information gathered from the neighbourers, there is no detail as to who were those neighbourers disclosed about the parentage of complainant or beneficiary of that disconnected CA.
(iii) The OP claims that previous connection was disconnected and the arrears were transferred in the name of complainant. But complainant claims that there was verification and then electricity connection 100560481 was installed in his name and in 2009 there were no due or arrears. The OP could not establish that electricity connection in the name of complainant was allowed during the subsistence of any arrears.
(iv) The OP has not established any official/sanction order of the competent authority as to how and on what sound reasons or record the dues, if any, of disconnected connection in the name of Sh. Ram Sharan was apportioned in the name of Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Ms. Tanuja or they are gramdson or daughter in law respectively of Sh. Ram Sharan.
(v) The complainant has also proved the earlier representations as well as reply to show cause by the same set of facts and features that the name of his parentage, who also led evidence in the present case. There is no counter evidence on behalf of OP to rebut the plea and evidence of complainant.
(vi) The complainant has been mentioning throughout about the threat of disconnection of his electricity connection by the OP unless he pays the arrears and he has ultimately deposited the same, for which receipt issued by OP has also been placed on record vis-à-vis the complainant also proved his advance application to OP of his depositing the amount under such circumstances.
(vii) When there is no consumption by the complainant in respect of CA no.100574720, it is against all norms and principle of natural justice to ask the complainant to pay others arrears/electricity charges (under the bill in respect of CA no.100560481 in his name).
5.3. The aforementioned conclusions prove the case of complainant that despite the complainant has not consumed the electricity in respect of other connection/meter and he was given electricity bill showing partly arrears of some other connections, it amounts to unfair trade practice and for want of rectifying it despite requests, it is deficiency of services vis-à-vis the complainant was constraint to deposit the amount during the pending of this complaint. However, in the final arguments the complainant reiterated his plea to reduce the arrears shown in the impugned electricity bill besides requests for compensation in lieu mental harassment and financial losses & litigation cost.
Thus, the complainant is held that he is not liable to pay the said arrears Rs. 25,065/- shown in the electricity bill of CA. No. 100560481 in Bill No. 1007833660808 or in any other subsequent bill. Since the amount has been deposited by the complainant under constraints during the pending of complaint, therefore, complainant is held entitled for refund of amount of Rs. 25,065/-
5.4. The complainant has not quantified any compensation amount in the complaint and it has been left to the discretion of the Commission, even in the final arguments but for cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Considering the totality of circumstances, compensation of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of complainant and against OP in lieu of the trauma and threats faced besides cost of Rs. 2,000/- as claimed is also allowed in his favour and against the OP.
5.5. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against OP to reduce bill amount, shown as the arrears of Rs.25,065.06p,, in the electricity bill of CA. No. 100560481 in Bill No. 1007833660808 or in any other subsequent bill forthwith and to refund the deposited arrear of Rs.25,065.06p, which has been deposited by him in the office of OP forthwith. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.
The OP is required to return the amount within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of Rs.25,065.06p, from the date of deposit till realization of the amount.
6. Announced on this 6th day of January 2024 [पौष 16, साका 1945].
7. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules,
besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[Shahina]
[ijs-7] Member (Female)
