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.826/2007

SMT. SAROJ DEVI,

RZ-H-721, GALI NO.5,

RAJ NAGAR-II, PALAM,

NEW DELHI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                                VS.

M/S BSES – RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,

B.S.E.S. BHAWAN,

NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110019

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order: 15.01.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that her house was situated in an unauthorised colony and at the relevant time, the same was un-electrified area.  OP was providing electricity in un-electrified areas on ‘As is where is basis’ i.e. NS scheme.  In NS scheme, consumer was required to draw the electricity by hooking/tapping the existing network of OP and fixed monthly payment was to be made at flat rate i.e. @ Rs.2/- per sq. yards, till the time meter is installed. 

It is further stated that complainant applied for electricity connection under the said scheme and deposited Rs.4,850/- vide receipt No.300349 dated 24.04.1998 which included development charges of Rs.3,750/- and electricity charges of RS.1100/- @ Rs.100/- per month from June 1997 till April 1998.  After accepting the money, OP allotted the K.No.1503/NS/144486.  Complainant have further deposited a sum of Rs.26745/-(Rs.12550/- on account of development charges, Rs.1600/- as meter security for 2KW load, Rs.2,995/- on account of service line charges and Rs.9,600/- towards consumption of electricity).  Complainant further deposited Rs.14,260/- towards bill payment till April 2003.

It is further stated that OP itself had allowed to draw the electricity by hooking the main service line, complainant was falsely booked in case of direct theft and a bill of Rs.2,75,612/- was raised.  It is prayed that OP be directed to quash the aforesaid bill and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case as it a case of direct theft of electricity.  OP has referred to number of judicial pronouncements in this regard in its reply.

We have carefully gone through the record and written submission of the parties.

It is not in dispute that complainant was booked in case of direct theft of electricity and a case was filed against her in the court of ASJ Special Electricity Court Dwarka, New Delhi with the allegation that complainant was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by tapping BSES LV mains through wires which were further connected to the connected load of the premises.  The connected load was 17.205 KW/DX.  Videography was done at the spot.  Inspection report, meter details and load report were prepared at the spot.  The wires of blue and yellow colour were taken into possession vide separate seizure memo.   Ultimately complainant was convicted by the Ld. Special Judge Electricity Court on 30.5.2011.  Regarding deposits made by complainant, Ld. ASJ in para 16 of its judgment dated 30.05.2011 has held as under:-

“Smt. Saroj Devi has made certain payments to DVB as apparent from receipts Ex DW1/A dated 29.4.98 and DW1/B dated 6.4.2000.  The receipts nowhere show that the payment was with respect to the NS connection.  Moreover, NS connections were against very limited load at a very nominal rate as submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused.  The question of making payment of Rs.26,745/- vide receipt Ex DW1/B does not arise in case it was for NS connection. I am of the view that the payment vide receipt Ex DW1/A and B cannot be said to be the payment towards installation of meter of premises in question during NS scheme.  To my mind, the accused has failed to disclose the real purpose for which the alleged payment was deposited with DVB and this payment cannot be towards NS connection.  The accused cannot draw any support form the receipts.”

It is settled law that in case of direct theft 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. 

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