Delhi

StateCommission

A/129/2018

HANIF - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. SONKIYA

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:   09.04.2018

                                                                     Date of Decision:      17.04.2018

First Appeal No. 129/2018

In the matter of:

Hanif

S/o Late Abdul Majid

R/o H.No. 283 Hadoo Mohalla

(Near L-Pocket, Sarita Vihar

Mawasi Colony, Madanpur Khadar

New Delhi-110076.                                                                                        ….Appellant

                                                            Versus

 

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Through Mr. Prashant Verma

DGM (Business) Division SVR

BSES Sub Station Building

Community Centre adjacent to the

Polie Station, New Friends Colony

New Delhi-110025.                                                                                        ….Respondent

 

Through

R.K.Sonkiya, Advocate

Ch. No. 424, Patiala House Courts

New Delhi-1.

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

 

                                                                                JUDGEMENT

            The present appeal against order dated 21.11.17 passed by District  Forum dismissing application u/s 25/27 Consumer Protection Act moved by the complainant/appellant is at the stage of admission. The impugned order recites that grievance of the appellant was that respondent/OP did not comply with order dated 26.05.17 passed by District Forum.  Copy of the said order is at page 76 of the bunch of appeal.  It is signed by one member only and neither by the other member nor by the President of the District Forum.  It simply mentions that complainant filed an application for restoration of electricity connection. OP is directed to restore electricity connection till the disposal of the complaint.  Come up for further proceedings on 25.07.17. Order be given Dasti. The same does not show that notice of the application was given to OP nor reply was taken from OP nor opportunity of hearing was given to OP. Complaint was pending since 2016 and obtaining of exparte order by one member alone is highly unfair on the part of complainant.

2.        Impugned order is quite detailed.  It states according to complainant that father of the complainant namely Majid was owner of property No, 283, Hadoo Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi which he mortgaged to Jagmal for Rs. 40,000/-.  In lieu of interest father of the complainant allowed Jagmal to let out  two shops and one room to any individual and to collect rent in lieu of interest.  Father of the complainant made certain payment and after his death remaining amount was paid by complainant but Mr. Jagmal did not return the document of the property.  Hence  a suit of declaration and  and permanent injunction was filed by complainant before Civil Court.  The complainant  concealed orders passed in said suit.  The same was disclosed by OP in a reply to the application.  Complainant filed a writ in Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed in default on 10.01.14 and it was directed that no application for restoration would be entertained without depositing Rs. 10,000/- in Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund.

3.        The order also recites that one Mukesh Kumar s/o Shri Jagmal stated that his father employed father  of  complainant to look after cattle kept in the property in question.  After death of father of the complainant, complainant, his wife and widow mother used to live there and look after the cattle.   Later on complainant became dishonest and filed a case with intention to grab the property and extort the money.  Complainant fraudulently obtained electricity connection in his name in the property in question. Respondent after realizing his mistake issued show cause notice for cancellation of electricity connection.  On receipt of said show cause notice complainant failed a civil suit against BSES and Jagmal which was registered as suit No. 343/08.  Ld. Civil Judge refused to grant injunction in said suit vide order dated 03.09.09. Appeal against said order was dismissed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge vide order dated 05.03.11.  Review against that order was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.11.  In 2013 complainant succeeded in obtaining an order from PG Cell by fraud, misrepresentation and material concealment.  On intervention by son of Jagmal, the complaint was disposed by PG Cell with directions to the complainant to approach court.  The complainant again fraudulently obtained electricity connection and approached Hon’ble High Court seeking stay against withdrawal of electricity connection which finds place in order of Hon’ble  High Court.  The complainant filed frivolous application in suit No. 657/12 seeking directions for installation of electricity connection but could not get directions.  The complainant was indulged in Forum shopping and concealment of material facts by his fraudulent actions.

4.        Complainant took plea that district forum had no power to review its order dated 26.05.17 directing to restore the electricity supply.  The plea of the OP was that complainant obtained one line order on the ground that his son had got married and his wife refused to say with the family unless there was electricity connection.  So the District Forum found that it was not a case of recalling an order.  It was a case to dispose of the application on which interim order has been passed.

5.        It also found that  criminal case of tress pass is pending  against the complainant.

6.        To entertain the appeal would amount to allowing the appellant to reap fruits his own fraud.

7.        Counsel for the appellant relied upon decision in  Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending Engineer AIR 2011 Calcutta 64 in which it was held that lawful for purpose of electricity supply connection means actual occupier in settled possession. A person in settled possession may be a tress passer or unauthorized occupier or squatter is entitled to electricity until he is evicted by due process of law.  The same could have been relied upon by the complainant in Civil suit and not after failing in civil suit.

8.        Counsel for the appellant also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7572 of 2011 titled as Sri Chandu Khamaruvs. Smt. Nayan Malik (2011) 6 Supreme I. That was a case which involved dispute of passing of the lines supplying electricity through passage owned by the respondent.  That has no application in the present case.

9.        Counsel for the appellant also relied upon decision of Orissa High Court in WP (C ) No. 11358 of 2012 titled as Smt. S.Padma  vs. Central Electricity Supply Utility decided on 30.11.12.  In that case the High Court gave liberty to the petitioner to move an application for supply of electricity after fulfilling statutory requirements and the respondent was directed to consider the same according to law. Controversy in the said case was that petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase a house, respondent filed a suit for eviction.  The controversy was that petitioner had not obtained consent of the owner for obtaining connection.  It was held that since civil suit was pending petitioner could not obtain any permission.  The facts of the said case are totally different.

            The appeal is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

      MEMBER                                                                                         MEMBER(JUDICIAL)