DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 759/2008

Ms. Champa Rawat

W/o Shri Bhagat Singh Rawat

R/o M-31, IIIrd Floor, Saket,

New Delhi.                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited

Adhchini, New Delhi

(Through it’s Manager (Commercial)                             

….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution        :         21.11.08       Date of Order                :         12.09.19    

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

1. Briefly put, the complainant Ms. Champa Rawat applied for an electricity connection with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP.  Complainant deposited Rs.4,200/- with OP on 28.01.2008 to get an electricity meter installed at her residence.
   1. It is stated that after acceptance of the application and receiving of the charges OP did not install a new meter to provide electricity. It is next averred that the OP had promised the complainant that within 3-4 days the electricity connection will be installed but no one from OP came to install the connection. Thereafter the complainant made numerous complaints to OP, oral as well as written but all in vain. It is next averred that on 04.06.2008 complainant met the Commercial Officer of OP and hearing her grievance he directed the concerned official to install the meter immediately. But despite the directions no meter was installed at complainant’s residence. Aggrieved at the unethical, highhandedness and callous attitude of OP, the complainant approached the forum with the following prayer:

1. To install the new electirity connection/ meter at the aforesaid premise of the complainant i.e. M-31, IIIrd Floor, Saket New Delhi.
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages on account of mental anguish and harassment caused to the complainant due to deficiency in monopolized service on the part of the respondent.
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as exemplary damages on account of the remorseless conduct of the respondent aggravating the efficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part during the entire course of matter. 

1. Complainant in support of her complaint has annexed copy of acknowledgement for new connection marked as P-1, Receipt of payment on demand note as P-2 and an application to Commercial Officer as P-4 along with other complaints made to OP.

2.1     OP resisted the complaint inter-alia admitting that Smt. Champa Rawat is resident of M-31, 3^rd Floor, Saket New Delhi. She had applied for a new connection at the said premises.  It is submitted that when OP approached the above address for installation of meter against new connection, hindrances were created by the co-owner/ owner of the building. There was a possibility of manhandling against the staff of OP. It is further submitted that there seems to be some ownership dispute of the premises where the electricity meter was to be installed. It is next submitted that OP is ready to install the meter subject to no hindrance from co-owner of the building. Thus it is submitted that there is no violation of consumer rights as OP is ready to install the meter subject to no hindrance from the co-owner of the building. In light of these facts OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost and to award cost of litigation to OP.

3.       Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed on behalf of the complainant.  Evidence of Sh. A. P. Ram, working as DGM(B) Saket, is filed on behalf of OP .

4.       Written arguments are filed on behalf of complainant and OP.

5.       Arguments on behalf of the parties are heard and record is perused carefully. 

6.       Admittedly, the complainant paid Rs.4,200/- to OP to install a new meter for electricity connection.  Dispute between the parties arose when OP went to install the meter at the premises of the complainant and the co-owner/owner of the building tried to manhandle the staff. OP was informed that there was some ownership dispute of the said property. There is ownership dispute which is affirmed in view of CS158/2005 titled as Champa Rawat & Ors. Vs. Sh. Gyani Harnam Singh Aneja. A suit for specific performance, declaration, recovery (in alternative) perpetual and mandatory injunction pending in the court of Sh. A. K. Pathak, ADJ Delhi. An appeal in the matter titled above was filed against the orders of Sh. A. K. Pathak ADJ wherein Hon’ble High Court passed the following orders:-

          “It is stated by both counsels that the suit before the trial court is pending for a long time. In this view of the matter, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within one year from now.

          In the meanwhile, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, they will maintain status quo with respect to the suit property.”

7.       It is noticed that vide order dated 04.01.10, 13.07.10, 03.02.11 and 28.04.11 this Forum has directed BSES (OP) to install a New Electricity Connection at the premises of complainant. Whereafter, OP filed an application for modification of orders passed by this Forum on 28.04.2011 and 03.02.2011. OP in the said application submitted that the complainant is already having an electricity connection bearing CRN No. 23521032015 in the name of Harnam Singh. Copy of the bill and details of the payment with respect to the premises wherein Harnam Singh is the registered consumer is annexed as Annexure R-1 with the application. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w section 151 CPC is also pending on behalf one Mr. Gyani Harnam Singh Aneja to be impleaded as OP-2 in the array of parties.

8.       In view of the facts stated above, it is evident that the complainant had applied for an electricity connection at the premises which already has an active connection wherein the ownership dispute is going on.

9.       As regards the complainant’s demand for additional meter, additional meter’s request can only be made by the registered consumer.

Forum is of the opinion that the complaint is not bonafide. It seems the complaint’s purpose was not for seeking an electricity connection, it was rather to create an evidence to be used in pending civil litigation.

10.     Hence, in the light of the discussion above, the forum does not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.

11.     With dismissal of the complaint, all the pending applications filed by the parties have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.  

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 12.09.2019