Delhi

East Delhi

CC/372/2013

SURINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  372/13

 

Shri Surinder Pal Singh

S/o Late Shri Gurdyal Singh

R/o 8, 3^rd Floor, Gopal Park

Delhi – 110 051                                                                     ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Business Manager

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited

F-15/2, Krishna Nagar

Delhi – 110 051                                                                 …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 08.05.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 04.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 04.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Surinder Pal Singh against the Business Manager, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant who is said to be a consumer of electricity meter no. 11203336, CA No. 150103489 since 10.06.2011, received a notice on 15.04.2013 for supply disconnection as a sum of Rs. 1,95,250/- in the name of Anil Saluja, but no person of this name was residing in the said property since 20 years.  Wife of the complainant Smt. Amarjeet Kaur is said to be the owner of the property.  It has been stated that no such kind of notice was ever received by them.  They have been paying the electricity bills and no due was outstanding. 

          The complainant visited the office of OP and gave a written application to the concerned authority and requested them not to disconnect the electricity, but the officials of the OP were adamant to disconnect the electricity supply without any bonafide reason.  Thus, he has prayed that OP be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 1,95,250/- as well as not to disconnect the electricity supply.  He has further prayed that special cost for mental agony and cost of litigation be imposed on OP.

3.       In the reply, BSES have stated that there was no cause of action in favour of the complainant.  The complaint was frivolous; no notice of dues transfer was sent to the complainant; notice of disconnection pertains to Mr. Anil Saluja of CA No. 100877939.  It has further been stated that no disconnection notice was ever given to the complainant against his CA No. 150103489.

4.       In support of its case, complainant have not examined himself on affidavit.

          BSES have examined Shri Nirakar Roy, Business Manager of BSES Yamuna Power, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has stated in his affidavit that CA No. 150103489 stands registered in the name of Surender Pal Singh, S/o Shri Guru Dayal Singh, installed at          H. No. 8, TF, Gopal Park, Raghunath Mandir, D-51.  He has further stated that disconnection notice pertains to Shri Anil Saluja of CA No. 100877939 of 8, GF, Gopal Park, which was identical to the address of the complainant.  However, no notice of disconnection/dues transfer has been sent to the complainant. 

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  During the course of arguments, Counsel for BSES have stated that they have not issued any disconnection notice nor any transfer of amount.  Though the complainant have stated in the complaint that he received disconnection notice on 15.04.2013 in the name of Anil Saluja, but he has not stated that he have received the notice against CA No. 150103489, which is stated to be in his name. 

          The fact that no disconnection notice have been received by the complainant against CA No. 150103489, which is said to be in his name and the notice which he alleged to have been issued pertains to Mr. Anil Saluja of CA No. 100877939, as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Nirakar Roy, Business Manager of BSES, no cause of action have arisen in favour of the complainant.  The fact that no cause of action have arisen in his favour, the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable.  Thus, the same deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.      

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President