Delhi

StateCommission

A/527/2015

SATISH MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: Delhi

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

Date of Decision: 09.09.2016

First Appeal – 527/2015

(Arising out of order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi in complaint case No. 435/12)

 

        In the Matter of:  

                Satish Mittal,

        S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand,

        R/o 124-A, Ground Floor,

        Shahid Jeet Singh Marg,

        Katwaria Sarai

        Qutub Institutional Area

        New Delhi- 110016

 

……Appellants     Versus   BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. A-1/27, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi- 110 029 (Through Bus. Manager Sh. A.R. Kumar & Commercial Manager- Sh. A. Gupta)                                                                               …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.     This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 08.10.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 435/12 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.

2.     The impugned order reads as under:

        “At the request of Complainant of case No. 496/13, the Complainant has been waited till 12:25 p.m. Heard the Counsel for OP.

        We have gone through the file very carefully. Prayer of the Complainant in the complaint is to issue direction to the OP to check the meter in question and to accept the payment according to the electricity consumed as per the connected load and also to pay some amount towards compensation and legal charges. In the written statement, the OP has inter-alia stated that the OP has already tested/checked the meter of the Complainant on 18.09.2012 upon the request of the Complainant and the meter testing report shows “Meter Ok.”

        Complainant has not filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP. In his affidavit in evidence, the Complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and has not even stated a single word regarding testing of the meter on his request on 18.09.2012 (copy of the meter testing report has been filed on the file).

        Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that the meter in question has been infact checked by the OP on 18.09.2012 i.e. almost immediately after filing of the complaint on 31.08.2012. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to   award any compensation or litigation charges to the Complainant. The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the parties. File be consigned to record room.”

       

3.     The grievance of the appellant/complainant is that while passing the impugned order no hearing has been given to the appellant/complainant. It is submitted that there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as such an appellant/complainant has not been given hearing by Ld. District Forum. It is further submitted that respondent/OP had raised the bills which are far in excess of the actual load as a result of which excessive charges have been made from the appellant/complainant.

4.     It is submitted that the counsel for the appellant/complainant was held up on another court and the appellant/complainant requested for the pass over of the matter but the Ld. District Forum did not pass over and heard counsel for the respondent/OP and passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellant/complainant be not allowed to suffer for the lapse on the part of respondent/OP. It is submitted that counsel for appellant/complainant ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order.

5.     Ld. counsel for respondent/OP has submitted that the District Forum has considered the material on record and has passed the impugned order and no case for interference is made out. It is contended that it was the duty of the appellant’s/complainant’s counsel to have appeared in the matter.

6.     We have heard counsel for the parties.

7.     Perusal of impugned order shows that counsel for the appellant was not present when the matter was heard. Appellant/complainant was present who requested for pass over but his request was not acceded. The impugned order has serious consequences upon the appellant/complainant. The Ld. District Forum ought to have heard the counsel for appellant/complainant. There is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no hearing has been given to the appellant. In these circumstances, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the Ld. District Forum for deciding afresh after hearing both the parties.

        Let the parties appear before the Ld. District Forum on 08.11.2016.

        A copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

        File be consigned to record room.