Delhi

East Delhi

CC/263/2018

MAMTA RAGHAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 263/2018

 

	MAMTA RAGHAV W/O SH. NAIN SINGH 10/43, VILLAGE KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110092.	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED, SHAKTI KIRAN BUILDING, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110092.	.…OP

 

Date of Institution: 13.08.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 04.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 23.01.2023

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP alleging deficiency in service in removal of the electricity meter by OP with prayer for installation of the new electricity meter with the old original CA number (that was removed, being CA number 100830270) and continue the electricity connection with the said CA number, restraining the OP from generating and transferring the electricity bill of CA number 100830270 to CA number 100725014, the another connection of the complainant, along with damages of Rs.5 lakhs for causing mental and physical agony and deficiency in services on the part of OP .

 

1. Briefly put, the complainant was having two electricity connections, one domestic connection under CA number 100830270 and other non-domestic connection under CA number 100725014 in the same premises. The domestic connection CA number 100830270 was disconnected due to non-payment of bill and the arrears of the said domestic connection were transferred to bill of non-domestic connection i.e. CA number 100725014.Complainant alleges that OP has disconnected the electricity connection illegally and without taking her permission, entered into her premises and had taken away the electricity meter without issuing any notice/legal notice. It is further stated by the complainant that OP has tempered the reading and have created false and manipulated claims of the bill amount and have added meter bill having CA No. 100830270 of complainant with her other meter of CA number 100725014.
2. Complainant grievance is that the transfer of arrears of one connection to another connection, is illegal as she has already paid the bills for the electricity consumed against the said connection and there is no liability to pay any charges as claimed by OP.  Complainant alleges that by disconnecting the electricity connection, OP has committed various offences against the complainant like defamation, trespassing, theft, in premises, attempt to extortion, threat, conspiracies etc andhas committed deficiency in services which have caused mental agony and physical harassment to her. The complainant had also lodged a complaint with police station, Anand Vihar, vide DD number 40 6B on 24.07.2018. The complainant prayed for re-installing the new electricity meter with the old CA number and continue the electricity connection with the said CA number as well as restraining the OP ‘s from generating and transferring the electricity bill vide CA number 100830270 in CA number 10072,5014.
3. In support of her case, complainant has also filed documents showing conversation between OP and complainant, with SDM concerned and copy of legal notices et cetera.
4. OP has filed its reply, stating inter alia, that complainant has already filed a criminal complaint in police station, Anand Vihar in this matter, hence the complaint is not maintainable before this consumers forum. OP has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble NCDRC in complaint number 1/2006, titled as ‘Hotel Corp of India Ltd Vs DVB’, wherein it was held that the definition of consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has excluded service for the commercial purpose. In the said complaint, the disputed electricity connection has been sanctioned for commercial / non-domestic purpose and the complainant does not come under the definition of ‘consumer’ under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, uphold in Complaint Number 118/2006, dated 07.08.2009, titled as ‘BSCS Rajdhani power Ltd vs M/s Saraf project Private Limited’. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
5. The OP further stated that the complainant has tried to mislead this Hon'ble forum by suppressing the material facts. It is submitted that the premises of the complainant was inspected by the OP official on 27.01.2017 and it was found that the electricity supply of live connection vide CA number 100725014 was extended to the disconnected meter of CA Number 100830270 and electricity supply was restored illegally despite the disconnection on 10.08.2016 due to non-payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs.13,675/-, hence OP has issued show cause notices to the complainant on 31.01.2017 and on 25.02.2017for transfer of dues of disconnected meter, CA Number 100830270, to CA number 100725014, which  was also registered in the name of complainant in the same premises. When no reply was received from the complainant, then considering all facts, the dues of disconnected connection amounting to Rs.13,675/-, had been transferred on connection of the complainant vide order dated 05.09.2017. Further, when complainant did not pay the dues transferred including current demand, a notice of disconnection of supply was issued to the complainant on 31.12.2018. The legal notice was also sent to the complainant, however, the complainant did not clear the outstanding demand of consumption. Further, OP stated that as per regulation 29(3) of DERC Supply and Performance Standard Regulation, the meter has to be installed at an accessible place by the consumers. Hence there was no question of entering the premises of the consumer at the time of disconnection and when the premises of the complainant were inspected by the OP official on 27.01.2017, the above said activity was found.
6. It was further stated by the OP that all the bills were raised on actual consumption. It is the complainant who herself choose not to reply the notices of OP and later filed a criminal complaint in the police station to evade the dues of the actual consumed electricity. OP submits that proper opportunities have been given to the complainant to present her case before concerned officials and dues are transferred as per procedure and no cause of action even arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint stating that complainant be directed to clear all her dues.
7. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence as well as their written arguments on record.
8. We have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties and it is observed that bill amount of Rs.13,675/- due towards complainant is not in dispute. The only dispute about the legality of the transferring of arrears of one connection to the other connection.
9. This is the admitted case of complainant that she has got two connections at the same premises, one domestic and other non-domestic purpose. The dispute between the parties arose when OP raised the bill for an amount of Rs.13,675/- w.r.t. connection CA number 100830270 i.e. domestic and disconnected the said connection on 10.08.2016, due to non-payment.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has not filed any document so as to establish that there was illegal disconnection of CA number 100830270 or that it has been tempered or that there was no due available with respect to this matter. The complainant has also not filed any document or receipt of payment towards the payment of the CA number CA number 100830270 as stated by her that no due was on her electricity meter and it was illegally disconnected. The complainant further failed to show how she got two connections at the same premises, one domestic and other for non-domestic purpose. In support of its case, OP has filed the bill with respect to both the CA numbers; show cause notice dated 31.01.2017; notice dated 25.05.2017;  notice dated 05.09.2017 and 31.12.2018.
11.           On perusal of the documents placed before us, it is noticed that OP has issued show cause notice dated 31.01.2017 and 25.02.2017, mentioning the undertaking/declaration furnished by the complainant/applicant of the electricity connection, whereby the applicant undertakes to clear all the accumulated/generated dues against the premises and the licensee is authorized to recover the same from the applicant or transfer the dues to any existing electricity connection sanctioned in favour of the applicant. As per condition of supply, all outstanding dues of the electricity on the premises are required to be settled by the applicant of new connection which is the settled law.
12. Another notice dated 25.05.2017 was issued by OP mentioning regulation, 49(ii) of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007, which allows licensee to transfer pending dues, disconnected collections to the live connection. 
13.           OP has also issued another notice dated 05.09.2017 to complainant, wherein, it is stated that second notice was issued to the complainant as per the previous notice dated 31.01.2017 in which Complainant was required to show cause for unauthorized receiving of electricity and asked for the clearance of the dues with intimation that in case complainant wanted to represent against the said notice, she should file her objection within 10 days of issuance of notice and appeal in person or through authorized representative at dues transfer cell on 20.09.2017. This was further intimated that in case no response received from the complainant side, it shall be presumed that she is in agreement with the contention of the above mentioned notice and accordingly the OP will proceed for dues transfer as mentioned into the said notice.
14. Even thereafter, another notice dated 31.12.2018 was sent by the OP to the complainant further asking for payment of dues amounting to Rs.37,620/- with respect to the CA number 100725014.
15. We have carefully gone through the document placed on record by both the parties. Apparently, it seems that OP is within its right to collect the outstanding dues from the complainant as per Regulation 49(ii) of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007, which allows licensee to transfer pending dues, disconnected collections to the live connection. Moreover, it is noticed that complainant has not filed any outcome to the reply of the notice issued by OP nor it was clear whether complainant has filed her objections or represented her case before OP. It is also not clear whether the complainant represented herself at the dues, transfer cell and the outcome therein. Complainant is not allowed to agitate the same issue as of now before this commission, which is pending before the dues transfer cell.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the above case, this commission is of view that complainant is failed to establish her case. She has also not filed any document to establish that there is no dues pending against her with respect to the CA number 100830270 and she has paid all. The OP has filed the rules, as well as the notices given to the complainant, providing her many opportunities to represent her case before dues transfer cell or to file her objection. Complainant did not choose to do the same. Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in providing service by the OP to her and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed is being dismissed herewith. There is no order as to cost.
17. The file be consigned to be Record room, after providing the copy of the order to both the parties in terms of the rules of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
18. The complaint could not be decided in time due to heavy pendency of the work.
19. The order contains 07 pages, each bears our signatures.