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.372/2006
Smt. Phool Kumari Pachauri,
W/o Late Sh. G.S Pachuri’
R/o C-1633, Tigri,
New Delhi-62. ………. Complainant
Vs.
BSES RajDHani Power Ltd.,
BSES Bhavan,Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 …………..Respondent
Date of Order: 12.08.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complaint is regarding deficiency in service on part of OP Company in providing inflated bill.
The complainant is end user of electricity meter bearing no.2511N7110001(4AN0098665561). She paid Rs.7000/- in September 2000 as part payment of electricity bill and requested the OP to issue proper bills and also change electricity meter in her name. It is stated that the complainant’s bill was not rectified. She regularly received notices for disconnection of electricity. In the month of August 2002 bill for Rs.14,070/- was issued and in Dec 2002 a bill for Rs.53,070/- was issued thereby implying inflated billing by the electricity department.
The complainant thereafter paid Rs.25,000/- on 16.12.2004 under protest. Complainant has also annexed the detail of meter reading giving a tabular account of bill raised in different month, meter reading, amount paid that is marked as annexure F. The complainant alleges that she complained to OP office multiple times for rectification
-2-
of bill but of no avail. The complainant thereafter filed the complaint and prayed for rectification of inflated bill and already deposited amount to be credited in her name.
The complainant further prayed that OP be directed not to disconnect the electricity supply and also compensation for damages.
OP in its version have stated that the said electricity meter is in the name of one Sh. Saroopa and there is no privity of contract with the complainant. It is stated that the connection was not transferred to the complainant’s name as commercial formalities were not completed. OP has admitted that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- was received on 15.09.2000, Rs.25,000/- on 16.12.2003 and Rs.15,000/- on 27.03.2004. However, OP states that the complainant was a regular defaulter in payment of electricity bills and the amount received was duly adjusted in the electricity bills. OP has also filed general entry annexed as A1/1 (colly) wherein the sum of Rs.25,000//- and Rs.15,000/- were reflected as revenue realized. OP further states that inspection was carried out by the enforcement cell on 10.11.2006 as the meter installed at the premises was found sticky and stopped on load.
The complainant in her rejoinder stated that she is the sole owner of the premises since March 2000. The complainant has made part payment of the electricity bill under protest which was duly accepted by OP and hence the privity of contract is established. It is also stated that the complainant has paid Rs.47,000/- which is much more than the actual payment. Moreover an offer of settlement was made by OP but as no computerised details were not provided, settlement could not be reached. The complainant has further stated that the meter reading is not shown by the OP. Complainant has enclosed a notice dated 16.03.2007 wherein Rs9,427/- was demanded by OP to settle the electricity bill.
The complainant had moved an application dated 18.07.2012 for restoration of electricity connection. Relevant portion of order is reproduce as under:
“It has been pointed out that it was very much made clear in the order dated 23.11.06 that the OP shall stand restained from disconnecting the electricity from the meter in question. According to counsel for complainant it was a stay order in
-3-
unambiguous terms and has been disobeyed by the OP. Because the disconnection appears to be in violation of the stay order granted by the Forum, the OP-BSES is directed to restore the electricity supply to the meter in question within two days. So far as the liability of the complainant to pay the bills is concerned the same shall be considered at the appropriate stage and this order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the OP to recover the legitimate dues. Let detailed of statement of account be furnished by the OP on 7.8.12”.
The examination of court file shows that in order dated 7.08.2012, it was recorded that the stay order of the Forum has been violated and accordingly BSES was directed to restore the electricity supply within 2 days. However, OP had not complied with this order. An application had been moved for contempt proceedings against OP, The counsel and A/R for OP was directed to call officer Sh. Kashmiri Singh (DGM) before the Forum on 14.08.2012 to show cause as to why contempt of court proceeding should not be initiated.
OP has filed revision petition in Hon’ble State Commission against the order dated 18.07.2012 and 07.08.2012.
The order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 06.08.2013 is placed on record. The order states that the complainant failed to pay the electricity bills. The operative part of order is reproduced as under During the course of arguments, the counsel for the Revisionist/Respondent filed an account statement from 19.05.2006 to 27.08.2012 in respect of current demands based on actual consumption on reading basis showing therein the outstanding dues against the Respondent/Complainant amounting to Rs.59,161.82/- as well as LPSC of an amount of Rs.29,501.39/-, and on enquiry from counsel for the Complainant/Respondent that whether Complainant/Respondent is now ready to deposit the amount due of the current demands raised against them as per the statement submitted by the Revisionist/OP. The counsel for the Respondent/Complainant answered that they can deposit only Rs.5,000/- and nothing more. This clearly shows that the Respondent/Complainant are not interested in
-4-
depositing any amount towards actual consumption charges raised by the Revisionist/OP and wanted to use electricity without payment of any charges.
In the light of the above discussion this Commission is of the considered view that when the complainant/Respondent failed to deposit the current demands as per order of the District Forum dated.26.02.2009 and 04.04.2009, no case of contempt of Court is made out against the Revisionist/OP but officers of the OP/ Revisionist had certainly failed to appear in person before the Forum and the orders dated. 08.07.2012 and 07.08.2012 passed by the District Forum are modified as Follows:-
- The Respondent/Complainant shall deposit an amount of Rs.20,161.82/- out of the total outstanding current demands amounting to Rs.59,161.82/- from 19.05.2006 to 27.08.2012 within fifteen days, and the balance amount of Rs.39,000/- out of the outstanding amount of Rs.59,161.82/- shall be deposited in two equal monthly instalments i.e. Rs.19,500/- on or before 30.9.2013 and another Rs.19,500/- on or before 30.10.2013. On depositing Rs.20,161.82/- the Revisionist/OP shall restore the electricity supply of the complainant bearing K No. 2511N7110001installed at C1633JJ Colony TIGRI, New Delhi. This is further made clear that on restoration of electricity supply of the complainant after deposition of Rs.20,161.82/-, the complainant shall continue to deposit the current demand from 27.08.2012 onwards without LPSC. The issue of payment of LPSC and dispute for which complaint has been filed shall be decided by the District Forum while deciding the compliant case no.372/06 pending before them.
The complainant went in appeal before National Commission.The order of National Commission dated 19.12.2013 is placed on record.The said order is reproduced as under.
The petitioner is directed to pay the current bills up-to-date from 2006 till 2013 and further current bills in future along with late fee charges.After the bills are paid, the connection will be restored within 48 hours.
-5-
The revision petition stands disposed of. The case is still pending before the District Forum. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum for further adjudication of the case.
The order sheet of this Forum Dated 20.03.2015 reflects that though the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission has directed the complainant to deposit the electricity bill, the complainant has failed to do so and therefore BSES has disconnected the electricity.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments submitted by both the parties along with documents on record. The complainant has placed a tabular chart of bill raised and meter reading along with amount paid on page 17 of the complaint. The complainant has till date paid only Rs.47000/- as admitted by both the parties. The complainant had being using the electricity supply without paying the current bill as directed by Hon’ble State Commission and National Commission. The sum of Rs.47,000/- paid by the complainant has been adjusted by the OP as per the general entry and as well as by tabular reading file by the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 16.12.2003 when the bill was Rs.65,590/-.The next bill in Febraury 2004 reflected Rs.44,590/- showing that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was adjusted. Similarly, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- on 27.03.2004 when the bill raised was Rs.44,590/-. The bill raised for April 2004 was Rs.31,420/- showing that the amount has been adjusted. The conduct of the complainant shows that she has been using electricity supplied by BSES with no intention of paying the corresponding bills. Complainant wants to wriggle out of her committed to pay electricity bills under the pretext of raising consumer dispute. Hence, the OP was well within the right to disconnect the electricity supplied.
For the reasons stated herein above, complaint is dismissed with no cost to parties involved. File be consigned to Record Room.
(D.R TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
