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.233/2009
SH. N.K. SHARMA,
C-43, SHALIMAR APARTMENT,
MASJID MOTH,
NEW DELHI-110049
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 29.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he deposited a sum of Rs.21,199/- vide receipt No.205309 dated 23.01.2001 with OP for permanent connection and subsequently as per the direction of OP applied for temporary connection and deposited a sum of Rs.15,660/- vide receipt No.204301 dated 01.2.2001 but till date permanent connection has not been installed. OP is charging 30% extra on temporary connection. Complainant was further directed to resubmit the application for permanent connection in the month of April 2002 alongwith affidavit of Rs.500/-. The needful was not done. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount deposited which at the time of filing of the complaint comes to Rs.1,47,436/- as after every five years the amount doubles. Apart from that, complainant has claimed conveyance charges and harassment charges.
OP in the reply took the plea that the amount was deposited by complainant on 23.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 whereas complainant claimed the refund of aforesaid amount in the month of August 2008 and February 2009 i.e. after eight years. It is stated that complaint is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the area at the relevant time was not electrified hence OP could not provide electricity connection. It is not disputed that the aforesaid amounts were raised for permanent connection.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
We do not find any force in the contention of OP that the complaint is barred by limitation. Neither the electricity connection was provided nor the amount was refunded. Documents for the refund of the amount as desired by OP were deposited on 06.09.2008 and 18.02.2009 and despite of that the amount was not refunded. Accordingly this complaint was filed on 31.03.2009 and the same is very much in time.
In fact complainant has written a letter dated 21.09.2004 to OP and brought to its notice the amount deposited by him for permanent connection. That initially the amount of Rs.21,199/-was deposited for temporary connection and thereafter an amount of Rs.15,660/- was deposited for permanent connection. It was further stated in this letter that all the residents of his block got the domestic light connection except the complainant and the permanent connection was not given to him. No response received by complainant in respect of the aforesaid letter. Thereafter vide letter dated 04.07.2006 complainant sought refund of either of amount deposited by him. Again the request for refund of Rs.21,999/- was made vide letter dated 06.09.2008. The documents as required by OP for the refund of the amount deposited by complainant were submitted on 06.09.2008 and 18.02.2009 however the amount was not refunded. In fact once OP has accepted the amount for providing electricity connection, OP was under obligation to provide the same. OP has failed to give any plausible reason for not providing the electricity. In the written submissions, complainant has referred to certain regulations which casts an obligation on the part of OP to provide the electricity within a specified period and if the electricity is not provided within the a month then OP was under obligation to pay compensation In this case though the amount was deposited in the month of January 2001 and February 2001, OP has not even bothered to refund the amount as requested by complainant vide letter dated 04.07.2006 and 06.09.2008 and submitting of desired documents for refund on 06.09.2008 and 18.02.2009.
In fact there was a controversy as to whether amount has been refunded or not. OP sought time to verify the same and in case amount is not paid, for issuance of fresh refund vouchers. The refund vouchers were not prepared. Finally complainant refused to accept part payment. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.36,859/.- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from February 2001 and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
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
