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.341/2008
SH. JASWANT SINGH
283/42A, WEST BLOCK,
VISHNU GARDEN,
NEW DELHI-110018
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S BSES – RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,
B.S.E.S. BHAWAN,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 04.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that on 18.03.2008 an illegal inspection was carried out by a team of person associated with OP in the premises of complainant and made false and fabricated case of direct theft of electricity. The inspection was not carried out by the authorised team. No material evidence was collected by the inspection team for arriving at the conclusion of direct theft of electricity.
OP on the basis of so called inspection dated 18.03.2008 arbitrarily raised the bill amounting to Rs.1,43,593/- which was wrong. There was no dishonest abstraction of electricity. It is prayed that OP to withdraw the bill amounting to Rs.1,45,393/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint being a case of direct theft of electricity.
It is further stated that inspection of the premises was carried out on 18.03.2008 by Division Inspection Team and it was found that complainant was indulging in direct theft of electricity by way of illegal means before the meter through illegal wire with the help of change over switch feeding the entire load of the premises unauthorisedly. A load of 12.270 KW(DX) being used by complainant for Domestic purpose was found running directly on BSES system. As such complaint was booked for Direct Theft of Electricity as per the Electricity Act, 2003. As such meter bearing No.239262226 installed in the premises was found totally bye-passed
It is further stated that complainant was indulging in Direct Theft of Electricity, accordingly DFO Enforcement raised the Direct Theft Bill amounting to Rs.1,45,393/- with due date 01.05.2008. Direct Theft Bill raised by the DFO Enforcement is in order as per Tariff Provision & DERC Regulations. Hence, the complainant is liable to make the payment of Direct Theft Bill.
In the rejoinder, complainant had denied averments made in the reply of OP.
We have heard complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments of the parties.
Bare perusal of the inspection report shows that the complainant was indulging in direct theft of electricity hence 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.
OP has also referred to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of NSES vs. Dhiman Engineering Works CM(M) NO.1627/2006 & CM NO.14008/2006, the Hon’ble High Court not only dealt the issue regarding maintainability of the DT and DAE cases in the Consumer Forum but also showed deep anguish as despite direction and clear law laid down in this regard, the Forums are entertaining the cases pertaining to DT/DAE and granting relief, interim or final to the consumer. It has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court that the Consumer Forum is not appropriate Forum to adjudicate the issue of theft and DAE therefore neither any finding can be made nor any relief can be granted to any consumer who makes complaint before the Forum on the issue of DT/DAE. A direction has also been issued by the Hon’ble High Court in this regard.
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) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
