Delhi

North East

CC/117/2014

Smt. Parmila Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Oct 2022

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. 117/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Parmila Devi W/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Tomar R/o B-1/29, Brijpuri Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. District/Division, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

25.03.14 24.08.22 20.10.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant was having a domestic electricity connection vide CA no. 101426550 and CRN no. 12527755 from Opposite Party vide meter no. 23206577 installed at B-1/29, Brijpuri, Delhi-110094. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party without giving any show cause notice raised the electricity bill for misuse and the said bill was paid by her but thereafter Opposite Party again sent a bill of Rs. 22,571/- of misusing along with LPSC dated 27.11.13 which was also paid by the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that she was not misusing the said electric connection in any manner andonly using for domestic purpose. On 05.12.13, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 60/- for inspection of the said electricity connection and the inspection was made and no misuse was found but again on 29.11.13 a bill of Rs. 15,130/- was sent to her by Opposite Party directing that she should deposit the amount and the same will be refunded to her later on but no amount was refunded to the Complainant. It is also submitted by the Complainant that the Opposite Party had also issued a certificate/bill of no dues against the Complainant. The Complainant stated that again on 14.03.14 Opposite Party issued a bill of Rs. 17,800/- on the said basis of misuse of electricity connection which is wrongful tactics adopted by Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted that she is a cancer patient and the officials of Opposite Party were harassing her without any reasonable cause. The Complainant and her husband requested the officials of Opposite Party to removethe misuse from the record of Opposite Party and also to refund the excess amount so received by them but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Party to remove the misuse from the electricity record/bill of the Complainant with immediate effect and to cancel the bill of Rs. 17,800/- dated 14.03.14. She has also prayed to direct the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs. 15,130/- and  Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation, Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that the complaint is not maintainable as on 09.10.13 an inspection was carried out at the premises of the Complainant and it was found that Complainant was using the electricity for commercial purpose i.e. for construction work whereas the electricity connection was for domestic purpose the show cause notice was served to the Complainant and the Complainant did not file reply to the said notice nor she appeared for personal hearing. Thereafter, a speaking order was passed on 19.11.13 and bill of Rs. 22,237/- was raised against the Complainant. On the request of the Complainant, the said amount was ordered to be paid in two installments. The first installment of Rs. 15,130/- was to be paid by 29.11.13 and the second installment of Rs. 7,108/- was to be paid by 30.12.13. The Complainant paid the said first installment on 29.11.13. Therefore, this shows that the Complainant has admitted the misuse of electricity by paying the first installment of Rs. 15,130/- and therefore she cannot challenge the allegation of misuse of electricity. It is stated that on 06.12.13 the Complainant deposited Rs. 60/- for inspection and during the inspection no misuse was found and thereafter on 06.01.13 misuse charges were not levied upon the Complainant. Out of the misuse electricity bill of     Rs. 22,237/- the Complainant paid Rs. 15,130/- and rebate of Rs. 7,107/- was given to the Complainant. It is denied that the Opposite Party raised a bill of Rs. 17,800/- on 14.03.14 on misuse tariff. It is submitted that the said bill was issued on the basis of domestic tariff out of which the current bill amounts to Rs. 588.23 (after giving subsidy rebate) and the arrears amounts to Rs. 17,211.4 (including LPSC of Rs. 508) which was charged on the basis of misuse tariff as the consumer applied for misuse withdrawal on 06.12.13 and the same was withdrawn with effect from next billing cycle i.e. 06.01.14 as per DERC guidelines. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party and she has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint. It is stated by the Complainant that inspection dated 19.10.13 was conducted with malafide intention and the assessment order was not a speaking order. It is stated that inspection of the Opposite Party dated 09.10.13 was wrong and no misuse ever found of the electricity. It is submitted that the order passed by the opposite party in this regard is not a speaking order dated 19.11.13 and bill of Rs. 22,237/- is false. It is submitted that the Complainant paid the amount of Rs. 15,130/- i.e. first installment on 29.11.13 under force.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her 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 has filed affidavit of Shri Sanjib Pal, DGM of Opposite Party, Yamuna Power Ltd., Karawal Nagar, New Delhi, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

 

 

Arguments and conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Manager (Legal) of the Opposite Party we have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that she was issued an electricity bill of the Opposite Party to the tune of  Rs. 22,571/- with the allegation that she was misusing the electricity for commercial activity i.e. for construction work. It is her case that she never misuse the electricity for commercial purpose. On the other hand,  the case of the Opposite Party is that an inspection was carried out in the premises of the Complainant on 19.10.13 and it was found that the Complainant was using the electricity for commercial activities whereas the electricity connection was installed for domestic use. It is the case of the Opposite Party that Complainant was issued a notice to file objections against the said inspection report but the Complainant did not file any objection and ultimately bill of Rs. 22,571/- was raised against the Complainant.
7. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the said bill of Rs. 22,571/- was ordered to be paid in two instalments. The first instalment of  Rs. 15,130/- was to be paid by 29.11.13.  On the remaining amount the rebate was given. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant by paying the said amount of Rs. 15,130/- has admitted that the electricity was being misused for commercial purpose. On the other hand the case of the Complainant as mentioned in her rejoinder is that she paid the said amount of Rs. 15,130/- “under force”. The stand taken by the Complainant in her affidavit filed in evidence is that she paid the said amount of Rs. 15,130/- after she was given assurance by the Opposite Party that the said amount would be refunded to her.  This shows that the Complainant has taken two different stands which are contradictory to each other. The first stand of the Complainant is that she made the payment of Rs. 15,130/- “under force”, the same cannot be believed as the assertion is vague as it has not been specified by whom, when and the manner in which the said force used by the Opposite Party. Even otherwise the Complainant has not made any complaint before any forum regarding the use of said force. The second stand taken by the Complainant is that she was made to understand that the said amount of Rs. 15,130/- would be refunded to her is also not believable as the said assertion is also vague, the Complainant has not specified by whom, when and the manner in which she was made to understand that the said amount would be refunded to her. The Complainant has also fail to show by leading cogent evidence that bill dated 14.03.14 for Rs. 17,800/- was raised on the basis of misuse tariff.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.
9. Order announced on 20.10.2022.

                   Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President