Delhi

East Delhi

CC/322/2018

SUSHMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                               

                                                                                                 Consumer Complaint no.       322/2018                                               

                                                                                                 Date of Institution               15/10/2018

                                                                                                 Order reserved on               11/12/2019

                                                                                                 Date of Order                       16/12/2019                                                                            

In matter of

Mrs. Sushma,

w/o- Mr Kishan Chand Mittal     

J-3/8, 3^rd Floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051…...…………….Complainant                                                       

                                                                          

                                                                    Vs

M/s Business Manager,

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

Shakti Kiran Building,

Opp. Karkarduma Court, Karkarduma, Delhi 110032 ………Opponent

 

Complainant’s Advocate               Mr. Charan Jeet & Asso.                                    

Opponent’s Advocate                   Mr Imran Siddique Advocate &  AR

                                                         

Quorum     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                    Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                   

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant, Mrs Sushma Mittal purchased property/house from earlier owner Mr Sushil Chand bearing property no. J3/8, 3^rd Floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 51 and was paying electricity bill against CA no. 100967902 since long (Ex CW/1). She got new connection vide CA no. 100916754, but received notice for outstanding dues of Rs 117112.83/-without informing complainant (Ex CW/2) when new CA no was allotted in 2005, but pending dues notice cum disconnection of electricity was served on 10/09/2018 (Ex CW1/3).  

It was stated that another bill was issued vide no. 101713219032 for Rs 19850/- which was paid on 29/10/2018. Complainant approached number of times to recheck the outstanding dues as no current bills had ever shown huge outstanding dues, but OP did not consider the request of complainant.

Seeing unfair trade practice preferred by OP, filed this complaint and prayed for not transferring dues illegally in CA no. 100916754 from old CA no. 100967902 and no disconnection be done by OP with refund of excess amount paid to OP a sum of Rs 16736.81 and compensation for harassment Rs 50,000/-.  

After receiving notice, OP filed written statement and denied all the allegations leveled against them. It was stated that the premises of complainant was inspected by the officials of OP on 14/08/2018 and it was found that electricity supply of live connection in CA no. 100967902 had six connections where another CA no 100916754 was in the name of Mr Nirmal Nigam (OPW/1) and after giving consumer details, disconnected due to nonpayment of outstanding dues worth Rs 1,17112.83 on all six consumers (Ex OPW1/2,2A,2B,2C,2D,2E and 2F). So after serving show cause notices, disconnection was done and explanation was asked from all the consumers for outstanding dues. After receiving written reply, the outstanding dues were equally divided on all consumers. It is further submitted that all consumers had settled their divided dues of Rs 16730/- in time. So there was no dispute regarding old dues and present had no merit in complaint and be dismissed.

Complainant filed rejoinder to WS and denied replies submitted by OP. It was stated that all the facts were incorrect and false. OP illegally divided over dues of Rs 117112.83 in CA no. 100916754 to other six consumers by citing Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which stated that OP could not recover over dues after 02 years if dues were pending. Hence, act of OP was illegal and contrary to the Electricity Act.

Complainant also submitted her evidences through her own affidavit and stressed that all her evidences were correct and on record. She relied on evidence CW1/1,2& 3 where disconnection was done wrongly and without serving any notice for disconnection, over dues were divided to other consumers. She also took reference of CA no. 100967902 which was originally in the name of Mr Sushil Chand and same was transferred in the name of complainant in 2005 and she was regularly paying charges.  It was after the gap of 13 years, when OP suddenly served disconnection notice for nonpayment of old dues and relied on evidence CW/3. She also denied that site plan was ever prepared at her residence as Ex CW/’4&5. Hence all her evidence  and prayer be considered.

OP filed evidence on affidavit through Mr Vijendra Kumar, Assistant Accounts Officer with OP office and denied all allegations of deficiency in services. It was stated that complainant had not paid old dues when she purchased the property in 2005 and it was also admitted that on the demand of complainant name was changed, but as per required rules for clearance of old dues pertaining earlier owner had to be cleared by the subsequent owner if  not cleared by previous owner. It was also submitted that complainant did not mention earlier owner’s name of Mr Sushil Chand in her complainant and also no evidence was put on record. It was also submitted that as per Electricity rules, old dues were divided from all six consumers after taking written consent and all had paid the dues. So there was no deficiency of OP and present complaint be dismissed.

Complainant also submitted her written arguments where’s he stressed the deficiency of OP for illegally disconnecting connection of CA no. 100916754 and equally distributing old dues on all six consumers after 13 years. So this fact must be considered. Written arguments were taken on record.      

Arguments were heard from both the parties and after perusal of file, order was reserved. We have scrutinized all the facts and evidences submitted by the parties. It was evident that consumers once paid all old dues so complaint has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed. That being so complaint is dismissed without any order to cost.  

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20 (1) of the Act.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                          Mrs Harpreet Kaur-Member                                                      

                                                              Sukhdev Singh  President