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.21/2007
SHRI JATINDER KUMAR GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. A.P. GUPTA
W-56, GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S BSES LTD.,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
AND
Case No.644/2008
SHRI NITIN KUMAR GUPTA
S/O SH. J.K. GUPTA
W-56, GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S BSES LTD.,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
AND
Case No.645/2008
SHRI MANISH KUMAR GUPTA
S/O SH. J.K. GUPTA
W-56, GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S BSES LTD.,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:18.01.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as all these cases pertain to the same property. In fact Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta is owner of property and Sh. Nitin Kumar Gupta and Sh. Manish Kumar Gupta are his sons and they have applied for electricity connection in the capacity of tenants of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta.
The case of the complainant, Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta is that he is owner of property No.E-45 Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan, New Delhi on M.B. Road, Badarpur. He applied for electricity connection on 06.06.2002 in respect of the property. His application was processed and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.26,865/-. The said amount was deposited by complainant vide receipt dated 02.07.02 issued by OP.
It is stated that despite making all the payment, the electricity connection was never given. Complainant visited office of OP number of times in this regard however nothing was done. Ultimately a legal notice was sent on 28.12.06 which was received with the report “refusal”. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service. It is stated that on account of non-supply of electricity, complainant could not use the property in question and thereby suffered a loss of Rs.16.50 lakh.
It is further stated that the charges for the connection could not have exceeded more than Rs.10,000/- whereas complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.26,865/-.
It is prayed that OP be directed to install connection of electricity/power/load in terms of request made by complainant against which amount is paid to OP and settle all accounts of payment received by OP and excess amount be refunded to complainant with interest and also to pay compensation for harassment caused to complainant.
OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as complainant has applied for commercial connection hence he is not a consumer. It is further stated that on receipt of application from complainant at the time of inspection, it was found that the area was un-electrified. Since the are was not electrified hence a letter was issued to complainant on 10.01.2003 dispatched vide Dy. No.6138/14/01/2003 wherein the complainant was advised to apply and complete the commercial formalities for ‘As is where is basis scheme’ but complainant did not turn up and accordingly the application was cancelled. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder complainant took the plea that there is a difference between the commercial and non-domestic use. It is stated that he applied for non-domestic use for the purpose of earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment. It is stated that complainant is a law graduate and at one point of time had decided to practice in law as self-employment hence it cannot be equated as commercial transaction. Receipt of letter dated 10.01.2003 has been denied.
We have heard counsels of parties and carefully perused the record.
It is proved that complainant applied for non-domestic connection meaning thereby that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as it is nowhere stated in the entire complaint that he applied for non-domestic connection for the purpose of earning of his livelihood being a law graduate. For the first time in the rejoinder he stated so. Even otherwise he has been blowing hot and cold. On the one hand he is stating that he never received letter dated 10.1.03 while on the other hand it is contended by him that by virtue of this letter dated 10.1.03 his connection was converted from non-domestic to residential. We have carefully gone through the letter dated 10.1.03. It is nowhere stated in the letter that his request for connection is being considered for residential and not for non-domestic purpose. In the letter dated 10.1.03 it is stated that complainant could not be given connection because the area where his property is situated is un-electrified area and in that area connection can be granted on ‘As is where is basis’ and complainant was called upon to do the formalities in this regard but the contention of OP is that complainant never complied with letter dated 10.01.2003, accordingly his request was cancelled.
On the other hand it is submitted by complainant that he has paid amount of Rs.26,865/- and there was no reason for OP not to grant connection. It is significant to note that in the application for connection, complainant has specifically stated non-domestic. OP has placed on record letter containing noting dated 28.12.02 showing that area was totally un-electrified and connection is to be converted on ‘As is where is basis’. Precisely for that purpose the letter dated 10.01.2003 was written to complainant. There is nothing on the record to suggest that complainant has complied with the letter dated 10.01.2003. There was no deficiency on the part of OP rather complainant has not complied with the letter dated 10.01.2003.
During the course of argument complainant has stated that in 2008 he applied for new domestic connection and he got the same..
Even otherwise complainant applied for non-domestic connection and the plea of complainant that he applied for non-domestic connection for the purpose of earning of his livelihood is nothing but an afterthought. Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ hence the complaint No.21/07 is dismissed.
So far as complaint No.644/08 and 645/08 are concerned, the facts are identical. For the sake of reference, facts of case No.644/08 are detailed.
The case of the complainant that he has taken the premises on rent from its owner when the same was under construction and he applied for electricity connection on 06.6.02 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,375/- vide receipt dated 02.7.02 with OP. However, electricity connection was not provided despite writing various letters and ultimately the electricity connection was given only in 2007.
It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the complainant the difference of charges received and collected i.e. Rs.10,195/- alongwith interest of Rs.10,000/- and also compensation of Rs.16 lakhs on account of non-installation of connection till July 2007.
OP in the reply took the plea that complainant applied for non-domestic connection and a letter was written to complainant on 10.01.2003 stating therein that the area in question is non-electrified area and complainant was required to visit the office of OP for completing the formalities for commercial connection on ‘As is where is basis’. And ultimately the connection was installed on 22.08.2007. It is stated that since connection has been provided, complainant has become infructuous hence the same be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, complainant denied the averments made by OP in the reply. The onus was on OP to prove that complainant has applied for non-domestic connection. OP has even not proved that letter dated 10.01.2003 was sent to complainant rather complainant has placed on record the application dated 06.06.2007 which shows that he applied for domestic connection.
.
The fact remains that complainant applied for connection on 06.06.2002 whereas he was given connection in 2007 only. We do not know under which capacity complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.16 lakhs on account of non supply of electricity as it stated by complainant himself that he has taken the premises on rent when the construction was under progress. In fact the complainant alongwith his father Sh. J.K. Gupta (complaint case No.21/2007) has written letters to OP that on account of non supply of electricity connection they could not proceed with further construction of the property and could not complete the building. Complainant was merely a tenant hence he has nothing to do with the construction of the property. Nevertheless taking into consideration that the OP has taken more than five years to provide the electricity connection, there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses in both these cases i.e. complaint case No.644/08 and 645/08.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
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
