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.251/2009
Shri Mohan Singh,
I-56, GIF Left Portion,
Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 ………. Complainant
Vs.
- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
- Mr.Sudip Bhatachariya,
Assessing Officer,
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,
Enforcement Cell, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi-110019. …………..Respondents
Date of Order:
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia- Member
We have summarily considered the complaint for deficiency in service on part of OP. The Complainant is the Managing Director of M/s Adams International Export Pvt.Ltd. and was staying in the premises in the same capacity. The OP company inspected the premises on 17.01.2009 and took photograph of the same. The OPs thereafter sent a provisional assessment order under S.126 of Electricity Act, 2003 dated 4.02.2009 imputing that the connection was being used for commercial purposes and the bill for Rs.22,243/- was raised. A speaking order by enforcement cell dated 21.03.2009 is also annexed. Complainant prays for setting aside the speaking order.
OP has filed its version along with affidavit. It has reiterated that the inspection team found non-commercial use of electricity while the electricity sanction was given for
-2-
domestic purpose. OP has admitted the assessment order as well as the speaking order passed by the enforcement cell. OP has also annexed the electricity bill.
Perusal of the order reveals that the photographs and the video recording were again seen by the assessing officer along with the complainant. It was held that the video recording showed non-residential use of the premises. A number of colourful bags and packed boxes were found thereby proving non-domestic use of electricity. The video recording further revealed the setup of an office.
The allegation of the complainant cannot be believed as the inspection was held in accordance with law. The complainant were at liberty to challenge the same before the concerned authorities, the detailed provision of which have made in law.
We have also gone through judgment of Supreme Court in “UP Power Corporation limited and Anr. versus Anis Ahmed” (2013) 8SCC491. The apex court has held that any unauthorised use of electricity after inspection is covered by section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Penalties are prescribed in the same Act. It has been further held that “the acts of persons indulging in unauthorised use of electricity do not fall with the meaning of complaint and therefore not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act”.
Hence, in the light of above discussion the complaint is dismissed with no order to cost.
File be Consigned to record room.
(D.R TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
