Date of Decision: 26.08.2014

First Appeal- 515/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 1296/05 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, Behind Qutub Hotel, New Delhi)

Ranbir Singh,

S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash,

R/o 111/9, Kishan Garh,

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi.

                                                                                ….Appellant

Versus

1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,

BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,

New Delhi.

1. The Executive Engineer,

BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.,

Arbindo Marg, Adchini,

                                                            ….Respondent

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal

1.       By way of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenge has been made to order dated 12.02.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, New Delhi whereby compensation of Rs. 10,000/- has been given to appellant.
2.      Briefly, the facts are as under:

Appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint before District Forum under section 12 of the Act against the respondents alleging there that he had applied for commercial connection at his residential house No. 111/9 (Ground Floor) on 25.08.1999 pursuant to the scheme of respondents. He had paid charges and had also completed necessary formalities but the needful was not done by the respondents. There upon he had served a legal notice through his counsel on 03.07.2003. Even then the requisite connection was not provided. Ultimately, he had to file a complaint before the District Forum wherein prayer was made for installing of commercial connection at his residence as well as for grant of compensation for the harassment being caused to him.

1.                The respondent had filed written version before the District Forum wherein it was admitted that requisite fee was received from the appellant for enhancement of load. It was alleged that the earlier it could not be done as most of the DVB staff had taken SVRS and some were transferred from commercial section and it was contended that the respondents took over the DVB in June 2002 and thereafter the appellant did not approach their office. It was further stated that after filing of the complaint the load was enhanced by the respondents on 05.04.2004 and the complainant was liable to be rejected.  
2.           Both the parties had led their evidence. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence accordingly, the District Forum observed that the requisite connection had already been released after filing of the complaint in the premises of the appellant and considering the reasoning for the delay in releasing the connection, the District Forum had ordered the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant as compensation.
3.           We have heard the counsel for appellant.
4.           The only grievance of the appellant before us is that the compensation awarded to him is on lower side.
5.           Perusal of impugned order shows that there were allegations of theft of electricity upon the appellant also and in this regard, he had deposited the penalty with the respondents.  
6.          We find no reason to enhance the compensation especially considering the reasons given by the respondent for the delay and also considering that the new connection had already been installed at his premises immediately after filing of the complaint by the appellant before District Forum. 
7.          In view of the above discussion, no illegality is seen in the impugned order. The appeal stands dismissed.
8. File be consigned to record room. A copy of this order be sent to concerned District Forum.