CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.732/2008
COL. M.L. SARIN
KH. NO.289, D-11, ASOLA FARMS,
ASOLA, SAKET,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED
BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:13.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he was having four electricity connections in his farm house which are detailed as under:-
(K.NOS) (Meter No.) S/L
- K.No.25200F280051 (AP) 27078486 3.73 KW
- K.No.25200F280037 (AP) 27077927 11 KW
- K.No.25200F280038 (AP) 27077693 11 KW
- K.No.25200F280039 (AP) 27077691 11 KW
It is further stated that out of these four connections, three are sanctioned for domestic purpose and one is sanctioned for agricultural power. In the first week of July 2008 some persons claiming to be staff of OP came to the premises of the complainant for inspection with ulterior motive as they demanded illegal gratification which was refused by the complainant. Complainant was threatened. Thereafter a notice u/s 163 of Electricity Act was pasted on the boundary wall of his premises wherein it was stated that the complainant did not allow official of OP to inspect the premises on 17.07.2008 and it was further stated in that notice that the official of OP will inspect the premises within 24 days from the date of service of this notice.
It is further stated that complainant vide letter dated 18.07.2008 requested OP to inspect the premises on 21.07.2008 in between 12.00 noon to 1.00 PM as complainant is a senior citizen and residing in the premises alongwith his wife only. On 21.07.2008 complainant kept waiting but nobody turned up for inspection. All of a sudden some officials of OP visited the premises on 24.07.2008 in his absence and deliberately took some photographs according to their own whim and wishes and willfully with ulterior motive avoided to take photographs of the agricultural area of the said premises for which the connection in dispute is being used and left the premises without giving any inspection report as required by the law.
It is further stated that subsequent to that the complainant was shocked to receive impugned show cause notice dated 24.07.2008 u/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity alongwith impugned inspection report and load report wherein OP has alleged that premises of the complainant was inspected on the aforesaid date and at the time of inspection complainant was found using the connection No.25200F2800051 for domestic purpose which is sanctioned for agricultural purpose and the complainant was asked to appear for personal hearing on 08.08.2008 at the office of the OP.
It is further stated that on 08.08.2008, complainant appeared before the appropriate authority for personal hearing and tried to apprise the officials of OP that there is no misuse of electricity in respect of the aforesaid electricity connection however the submissions of complainant were ignored and a speaking order dated 19.8.08 was passed by the OP thereby establishing the case of unauthorized use of connection against the complainant and raised a bill dated 27.08.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,49,666/- with due date 09.09.2008. In order to force the payment of aforesaid illegal demand the OP further sent the Disconnection Notice u/s 56 of Electricity Act on 19.09.2008. This action of OP is challenged. It is prayed that OP be restrained from disconnecting electricity supply of the connection bearing K.No.25200F280051(AP), quash speaking order dated 19.8.08/inspection report as well as load report dated 24.7.2008/bill for a sum of Rs.1,49,666/- and OP also be directed to pay Rs.75,000/- for compensation for damage caused to home apparatus and compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs.25000/- for litigation cost.
OP in the reply took the plea that complainant is not a consumer as it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity and jurisdiction of civil court is barred. It is denied that the connection was used for agricultural purposes. It is stated that the premises was duly inspected and it was found that the electricity connection meant for agricultural purpose was being used for domestic purpose with a connected load of 40.102 KW and no agricultural activity was going on in the premises in question. Accordingly a notice was served on the complainant u/s 126 of the Electricity Act and the complainant was duly heard by the OP and a speaking order by way of assessment against which the appropriate remedy u/s 127 of the Electricity Act. It is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is settled law that in case of unauthorized use of electricity, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmed, 111(2013) CPJ 1(SC) where it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that person who is found indulging in theft of electricity is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
