Delhi

North East

CC/252/2018

Shakuntla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.s.e.s., Yamuna Power Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 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. 252/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shakuntla Devi W/o Sh. Bramhajit Yadav R/o House No. C-152 Street No. 3,PH-2 Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. Through Its Business Manager, 66KV, Grid Station, Bhagirathi Near Gokul Puri Station Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

 

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

12.12.2018 21.09.2023 23.11.2023

 

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 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having an electricity connection bearing CA no. 101418102 in House no. C-152, Gali No. 3, PH 2, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 94. The said connection is for domestic purpose having a sanctioned load of 1 KW. It is her case that no outstanding dues were pending against the connection installed at her premises. The Complainant stated that her bill ranges from Rs. 10/- to  Rs. 440/- for the last 8 months. On 13.10.2018, the Complainant received an impugned bill of Rs. 25,860/- for the period from 24.08.2018 to 25.09.2018 dated 28.09.2018 and having due date 16.10.2018. The Complainant submitted that no dues were pending against her and no enforcement team visited the site of Complainant. When the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and enquired about the bill then she came to know about bill of April 2011 having details old K. No. 325700154223D, Name: Brahamjit Yadav, Bill status Line: disconnected, arrear details 25,665.34/-, bill month April 2011. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party had not analysed the consumption pattern of Complainant before issuing the bill. Neither the inspection was carried out by the Opposite Party nor was any document given to the Complainant at the time of inspection. The Complainant stated that the modus operandi of Opposite Party is to pressurize the Complainant to settle the matter by paying Rs. 19,260/- whereas the Complainant is not liable to pay. The Opposite Party has sent a disconnection notice dated 13.10.2018 threatening Complainant to disconnect the electricity connection vide CA no. 101418102 installed at her premises. Hence, this shows deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to declare the bill dated 16.10.2018 as illegal, null and void ab-initio having no force in the eyes of law and also not to disconnect the electricity connection on the above mentioned CA no. at her premises. She has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false and frivolous. It is stated that the present complaint is related with transfer of dues of Shri Brahamjit Yadav, husband of the Complainant. It is stated that as per record CA No. 101331851 is registered in the name of Shri Brahamjit Yadav. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 25,665/- is due against Shri Brahamjit Yadav and the same was transferred to CA  No. 101418102 after following the due process of law. It is stated that Complainant is beneficiary of her husband’s electricity connection. The averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. It is stated that Shri Brahamjit Yadav i.e. husband of the Complainant never applied for any electricity connection in the premises in question. It is denied that CA No. 101331851 belongs to her husband. It is stated that there was no amount due towards her husband.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, Commercial Officer of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that she has received an electricity bill of   Rs. 25,860/- dated 28.09.2018 for a period from 24.08.2018 to 25.09.2018. The case of the Complainant is that the said bill is not legal and the bill is on a very higher side. The case of the Opposite Party is that the said bill is related to the transfer of dues of Shri Brahamjit Yadav i.e. husband of the Complainant. It is the case of the Opposite Party that as per record CA No. 101331851 is registered in the name of Shri Brahamjit Yadav, husband of the Complainant. The outstanding dues of Rs. 25,665/- in the name of Shri Brahamjit Yadav was transferred to CA No. 101418102 (i.e. the CA No. of the Complainant).  It is the case of the Opposite Party that the said outstanding amount was transferred in the name of the Complainant after following the due process of law.
7. The perusal of the file shows that the Opposite Party has not produced the relevant record to show that CA No. 101331851 belongs to Shri Brahamjit Yadav i.e. husband of the Complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the said CA No. of Shri Brahamjit Yadav was having an outstanding dues of Rs. 25,665/-. Nor it has been specified anywhere the period for which the said dues were outstanding. There is nothing on record to show that the said dues were transferred to the CA No. of the Complainant after the following due process of law. Nor it is specified what was the process which was followed for the purpose of transfer of the dues. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has failed to prove its case.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The bill dated 28.09.2018 for an amount of Rs. 25,860/- is declared as null and void. The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest  @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 23.11.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President