Delhi

North East

CC/140/2014

Daya Shankar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.140/14

In the matter of:

 

	Daya Shanker Gupta 42-D,S.G. Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd District Division G.T. Road Dilshad Garden Delhi-32
		Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	22-04-2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	27.02.2016

N.K. Sharma, President

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma

 

1.       The case of the complainant is that he has been the consumer of Opposite Party (to be referred as ‘OP’ hereinafter) from the last 19 years and paying the electricity bill regularly. That the complainant is not using any AC, geyser or other load and the consumption of electricity in two months is 300-400 units. That bill dated 13-2-2014 for Rs. 14670/- has not as per consumption for which a complaint was made to the OP on 21-2-2014. That the complainant went to the office of OP to get the electricity bill rectified, OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 2000/- and they will rectify the bill. That on 24-2-2014 the complainant deposited Rs. 2000/- with OP who got the meter tested which was found intact. That on 6-3-2014 a notice of disconnection of electricity was received at the residence of complainant alongwith electricity bill. That the staff of the OP visited the house of complainant and threatened to disconnect the electricity. That the complainant visited the office of OP several times but they did not pay any heed to his requests and threatened to disconnect the meter.
2.       Pleading unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant prayed for direction to OP for rectification of the bill and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the physical, mental and social agony suffered by him on account of the threats of OP.
3.       In response to the notice issued to the OP, the OP filed its reply and took preliminary objection that the complainant is not registered consumer, hence has no locus standi to file the present complaint as the registered consumer is Dharamveer Kohli and complainant did not make efforts for change of name under the provisions as laid down in Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standard Regulations 2007, hence present complainant is in violation of Rule of Privity of Contract.   On merits the OP has denied the allegation contained in the complaint and stated that the bill for the month of February 2014 has been sent to the complainant on the basis of downloaded reading for 2059 with the MDI of 4 Kw whereas the sanctioned load is 2 Kw.   That the meter has got tested at the request of the complainant and as per meter test report the meter was found within its permissible limits. It has been further stated that as per record the consumption of electricity of the complainant is too high and the MDI (Maximum Demand Indicator) is 4.29 shown in the bill for the month of February 2014 whereas the sanctioned load is 2 Kw.  It is prayed that the complaint is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4.       The complainant has filed replication to the reply filed by OP.  The complainant has stated that he is the owner of the property in which the electricity connection has been supplied and has placed on record certain document to prove his ownership and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint.
5.       Affidavits of evidence have been filed by both the parties.
6.       Heard the complainant and counsel for the OP and gone through the record. 
7.       On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following questions are required to be answered by this Forum :-

1. Whether the complaint is not maintainable as complainant is not the registered consumer of the OP ?
2. Whether the meter in question was faulty and was recording excessive reading of electricity consumed ? 

8.       As per section 2(15) of Electricity Act, 2003

“consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be; 

9.       The complainant has placed on record the documents of purchase or property which was connected with the works of licence for receiving electricity.  He has also deposited charges for testing of the meter.  In view of the above complainant is the consuming electricity as per the Consumer Protection Act, hence the complaint is maintainable. 
10.       In respect to second question, the complainant and OP have filed their evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated the facts contained in the complaint and reply respectively.  Complainant has placed on record the copy of the disputed electricity bill of February 2014 and copies of the electricity bills received and paid by him for the months of December, October, August, June, April and February 2013 in order to show the high rise in the electricity bill for the month of February 2014.  OP has filed copy of the MDI showing the download recorded reading for the period April 2010 to April, 2014. On perusal of the MDI it is found that the download recorded reading is high i.e. 4.29 in February 2014 and March 2014 as compared to the period April 2010 to April 2014 and the MDI is well within the sanctioned load of 2 KW to the complainant except on 2-3 occasions where it is shown that MDI is more than the sanctioned load.  It is the admitted case of both the parties that the meter was got checked through aqua test in the presence of the complainant and the same was found within its permissible units and copy of the receipt is placed on record.  The complainant has not raised any objection as to the authenticity of this report dated 12.03.2014.  The report clearly suggests that meter was recording the correct consumption of electricity which was passing through it. 
11.       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.  No orders as to costs.
12.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.
13.       Announced on 27.02.2016.

 

  

  (N.K.Sharma)         (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)            (Manju Bala Sharma)

          President                        Member                                  Member