Delhi

North East

CC/26/2019

Smt Sheela Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 Oct 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. 26/19

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Prem Chand R/o L-103-C, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi-110095		Complainant
		Versus
		BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its Business Manager, Division NandNagri, 66 KV Grid Sub-Stn Complex, Tahirpur Grid, NandNagri, Delhi-110093   Also at:- Division G.T Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		21.02.19 11.08.23 05.10.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e.BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant is consumer of electricity connection bearing no. CA No. 101172171 installed at address of Complainant and energized by Opposite Party on 01.06.1990. It is submitted that the complainant had been making payment regularly till January, 2019 and all of a sudden Opposite Party had raised a bill for the period 13.12.18 to 14.01.19 total amount of Rs. 25,686.31/-fixing the due date of payment on 05.02.19.On enquiry from Opposite Party, the Complainant came to know that the unpaid dues of CN No. 350016022 which were outstanding in the name of Sh. NeerajRana C/o Punj Lloyd Sarvodaya Govt. School, block D, NandNagri, Near A Block School, Delhi-110032 upto 29.10.12 have been included by the Opposite Party in the  aforesaid bill of Complainant. The Complainant stated that NeerajRana has been the tenant of Complainant in year 2008, however, in fact the Complainant had nothing to do with either the CA No. 350016022 or the address on which the said connection was provided by the Opposite Party. The Complainant alleged that Opposite Party’s employees threatened Complainant that her electricity connection shall be disconnected if the due were no cleared. Therefore, a separate application u/s 13(3B) of the CP Act has simultaneously been filed by the Complainant seeking interim relief in this regard. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party had included the unpaid charges of Neeraj Rana after 7 years in the bill of Complainant. It is submitted that the above conduct shows deficiency on behalf of Opposite Party.  Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to delete the amount of Rs. 25,918.31/- along with LPSC charged or chargeable thereon from the bill of the Complainant and issue a revised bill for the period 13.12.18 to 14.01.19 in respect of actual consumption and to give effect of the deletion of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,918.31/- in the subsequent bills which would be raised by the Opposite Party during the pendency of the complaint. She has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that Consumer Grievance RedressalForumis an exclusive legal body for the speedy trial of matter related to electricity. On merits it is submitted that Neeraj Rana had applied for two temporary connections at Sarvodaya Vidhyala Govt. School, Brahmpuri and Gautampuri respectively and in submission of the said applications for connections, the complainant Smt. Sheela Devi had furnished NOC cum Guarantor Affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper and indemnity bond on stamp paper of Rs. 100 alongwith the permanent card in the name of Smt. Sheela Devi. The Opposite Party has submitted that after following due process the amount of outstanding dues of two connections was transferred to the live connection of the complainant as she had furnished undertaking in both the connections to pay “if the consumers fail to pay outstanding dues of BYPL, BYPL shall have right to transfer the outstanding amount on the above said new K No.” It is alleged that Opposite Party had issued notices for the payment of outstanding dues to the complainant but the complainant tried not to clear the dues in question. Hence, it is prayed that in view of the agreement by the complainant at the time of new connection with the Opposite Party and then not ready to comply with their own statement, the present complaint deserves to be rejected with costs.

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 objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant, in support of her complaint, filed herevidence by way of 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 filed affidavit of Shri Tarun Sheel Anand, Commercial Officer of Opposite Party wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Complainant and the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file.
7. The case of the Complainant is that Complainant has a permanent electricity connection bearing no. CA No. 101172171 installed at heraddress since 01.06.1990. The grievance of the Complainant is that Opposite Party had raised a bill for the period 13.12.18 to 14.01.19 for total amount of Rs. 25,686.31/- and the said bill admittedly included unpaid dues of CN No. 350016022 which were outstanding in the name of Sh. Neeraj Rana C/o Punj Lloyd Sarvodaya Govt. School, block D, Nand Nagri, Near A Block School, Delhi-110032 upto 29.10.12. Complainant stated that she had nothing to do with either the CA No. 350016022 or the address on which the said connection was provided by the Opposite Party. In view of above, the Complainant alleged deficiency on behalf of Opposite Party and harassment and prayed that said amount of Rs. 25,918.31/- be deleted and revised bill be issued for the period 13.12.18 to 14.01.19 in respect of actual consumption.
8. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that Consumer Grievance RedressalForum is an exclusive legal body for the speedy trial of matter related to electricity. The Opposite Party contends that at the time of applying for temporary connections by Mr. Neeraj Rana, the complainant Smt. Sheela Devi had furnished NOC cum Guarantor Affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper as guarantor documents and indemnity bond on stamp paper of Rs. 100 alongwith the permanent card in the name of Smt. Sheela Devi. It is contended by the Opposite Party that due process has been followed and the amount of outstanding dues of two connections were transferred to the live connection of the Complainant as she had furnished undertaking in both the connections to the effect that in case of non-payment, BYPL shall have right to transfer the outstanding amount onher connection.Opposite Party submits that the complainant has not complied with her own statement and failed to clear the dues, hence, present complaint be dismissed with costs.
9. While perusing the file, we noted that during the pendency of present complaint, one application has been moved by the Complainant seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Opposite Party and the said application is pending disposal. However, Complainant has neither led any evidence in support of the same nor pressed the same during the course of arguments. In view of that, we do not deem it proper or in the interest of justice to pass any order on the application.
10. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is an exclusive legal body for the electricity matters cannot be accepted because filing of consumer complaint before consumer commissions is an additional remedy available to the consumers.
11. The other contention of the Opposite Party is that they have followed due process of law while transferring the outstanding dues as the Complainant had furnished NOC cum Guarantor Affidaviton stamp paperalongwith her Identity proofs and undertaken to pay in case of non-payment by NeerajRana.
12. The case of the Opposite Party i.e. BSES is that they have fastened liability on the Complainant on the basis of NOC cum Guarantee furnished by the Complainant and followed due process of law in doing so.The said NOC-cum Guarantor Affidavit reads as under:

 

       “Delhi                                     N.O.C CUM GUARANTOR AFFIDAVIT                                                       37 A A 725492

I/We Smt. Seela Devi W/o Premchand R/o L 103 C, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am/are lawful occupier of the said premises of enclosed copy of Bill (New K.No. 121112220454)
2. That I have no objection if electricity connection is issued/changed in the name of 121112220454  1210022544  101172171 23142304 who is my­­­……………………..in the above said premises.
3. In future the user……………… R/o ……………….fails to pay outstanding Bill BYPL shall have the right to transfer the outstanding amount on the above said New K.No.
4. In furnishing this affidavit I have clearly understood that the above statement should prove to be false or incorrect at any stage the department has every right to disconnection my supply without notice.

 

Signature Sheela

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at Delhi, on this above named do hereby certify that the above statement is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above said matter is only attested.

Signature Sheela

• DEPONENT”

 

13. From the above, it is clear that the said document is incomplete and vague. It is evident from the above that in paragraph 1, the Complainant i.e. Sheela Devi has only declared herself the lawful owner of the premises which is L-103C, Dilshad Garden. Further, second paragraph containing NO objection of the Complainant to the issuance of new connection neither mentions any name of user nor any relation of the user with the Complainant. Not only this, subsequent paragraphs no.3 and 4 containing the actual undertaking for payment in case of non-payment by user has been left completely blank not bearing even the name and address of the actual user.
14.  Apart from above, the document, relied upon as stamp paper by Opposite Party, is merely a photocopy with no details at the back side and the attestation is also not visible.  The Opposite Party has not produced the original of the same to enable us to verify the details shown above as well as the other relevant details of the stamp paper. Therefore, the said document being incomplete and vague lacks authenticity and cannot be relied upon.
15. In view of above mentioned discrepancies, the contention of Opposite Party that due process has been followed, is liable to be rejected. We find that the Opposite Party has wrongly transferred the outstanding dues of temporary connection of Neeraj Rana to the complainant and included the unpaid charges of Neeraj Ranain the bill of Complainant on the basis of an incomplete, vague and unauthentic Guarantee document which is arbitrary, unfair and against the law.
16.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in services towards Complainant by wrongly fastening the liability of upon the Complainant.
17. Thus, the present complaint is allowed and the Order is as follows-

1. The Opposite Party is restrained from recovering from the Complainant (consumer of Electricity connection bearing CA 101172171), the amount of Rs. 25,918.31 alongwith applicable charges, if any,in respect of the temporary electricity connection C.A No.350016022installed in the name of Punj Lloyd Sarvodaya Govt. School C/o Neeraj Rana.
2. The Opposite Party is also restrained from recovering any other amount/charges whatsoever, in respect of the any other electricity connection installed in the name of Punj Lloyd Sarvodaya Govt. School C/o NeerajRana from the Complainant (consumer of Electricity connection bearing CA 101172171).
3. The Opposite Party is directed to issue the revised bills on the basis of actual consumption after deducting the amount charged in respect of the temporary electricity connection C.A No.350016022 installed in the name of Punj Lloyd Sarvodaya Govt. School C/o Neeraj Rana.
4. In case, Opposite Party has already received any excess amount from the Complainant, same shall be adjusted by Opposite Party in the subsequent bills of the Complainant.
5. Opposite Party is further directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for causing harassment, pain and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of receipt of this order till its recovery.

18. Order announced on 05.10.23.

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