0CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

0GOVERN0MENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.24/2010

SH. KISHORI LAL

5/312, DAKSHIN PURI,

NEW DELHI-110062

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                              

Vs.

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.

BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DLEHI-110019

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:23.07.2018

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Disputes Act has been filed by Mr. Kishori Lal, the complainant,  against BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. the OP, alleging that BSES electricity connection bearing K.No.2511N1640552 installed in the name of the complainant at his residence 5/312, Dakshinpuri, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062, has been arbitrarily transferred in the name of somebody else.   It is submitted that his son is a TB Patient and due to the disconnection of his electricity supply, his condition has been worsening and that he had been visiting the offices of various departments, he has come under debt to the tune of Rs.45,000/- and now he doesn’t even have money even to pay the fare and he has been paying the interest on the borrowed amount through his nose.  He has prayed that his connection might be restored and he might be compensated for the economic losses suffered by him and necessary action might be taken against the concerned departments and their officials, and connection might be restored.   The complainant has supported the complaint by his affidavit and all relevant documents, including copies of the first receipt of booking, ration card, election card and paid bills, along with various representations submitted to various departments and authorities and has prayed that the electricity might be restored without any delay.    

The OP in its reply to the complaint, submitted that there was property dispute between the complainant and his niece i.e. daughter of his brother Shri Sahdev, and they did not permit the officers of the OP to install a meter in compliance of the order dated 28.8.2009 of the CGRF.  The daughter of brother of the complainant had filed an appeal before the Ombudsman (Appellate Tribunal against orders of the ld. CGRF) challenging the orders passed by; the Ld. CGRF wherein she had made a categorical admission that she prevented the officers of the OP company from installing the meter at the premises on 11.9.2009.   It is further submitted that the electricity connection in the name of the complainant was disconnected on account of non payment of dues, and the OP had no reason to disallow the request of the daughter of the brother of the complainant especially when the GPA with respect to the ownership of the premises and all commercial formalities were complied with by her and no efforts whatsoever were made by the complainant.   It is submitted by the OP that the claim of the complainant is not bona fide and his main objective is to harass the OP by causing loss of business and  credibility among the consumers of the OP, and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

The complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions has repeated and reiterated the same or similar facts and has admitted that the Opposite Party had filed a petition bearing C.M(M) No.1477/2009 and CM NO.18241/2009, before the Hon’ble High Court  against the abovesaid order  dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Pushp  Vihar, New Delhi, in which the Notice was issued to him  and meanwhile his electricity connection was restored on 12.4.2009.  He further submitted that he has been struggling for his lawful demand as he had spent a sum of Rs.58,015/-, with full details,  for getting restoration of his electricity connection.  He further demands a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The OP has also filed evidence by way of affidavit and the written arguments on behalf of the OP.  It is submitted that the complainant has suppressed material facts and not even whispered about his family dispute in any of his complaints.  It is further submitted by the OP that when the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non payment of dues, the said connection was virtually a non-existent connection, and when the daughter of brother of the complainant applied for transfer of connection in question in her name, the OP had no reason to disallow the request of the niece of the complainant, particularly because she had completed all the formalities and was having GPA of the house in her name.

During the course of oral arguments, the complainant submitted that he is a poor man and he had to face a lot of difficulties and spent a huge amount in getting his electricity restored.  Even after the restoration order, he had to pay the Security amount of Rs.4000/- whereas he had already paid the security amount for the earlier connection which had been disconnected illegally by the OP.  He prayed that the amount spent by him in pursuing his legal remedies  for this illegal transfer of his meter in the name of somebody else might be reimbursed apart from   compensation of litigation expenses.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

The complainant took the matter regarding disconnection of electricity before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum who vide order dated 11.11.2009 directed OP for restoration of the electricity.  In fact CGRF categorically held that the aforesaid connection stood in the name of the complainant and the same was disconnected as the complainant could not pay the bill.  It is further stated that the complainant is entitled to get it restored on payment of the outstanding dues.  An Ad-interim injunction order dated 28.08.2009 was issued to OP to temporarily reconnect the electricity supply of the complainant till the disposal of the complaint, however, the order was not complied with by OP.  This matter was taken seriously by CGRF.  The Forum also gave finding that the connection was transferred in the name of Smt. Manju Devi and the same was against the public policy and the principle of natural justice.  It is categorically stated that the connection cannot be transferred in the name of some other person merely because transferee is capable of paying the bill of the registered consumer.  It is further stated that DGM was not legally competent to transfer the connection in the name of Smt. Manju Devi.  The complainant has categorically stated that he has paid security of Rs.4,000/- for restoration of the electricity.  In fact OP has no right to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.  Moreover the electricity connection was transferred in the name of Smt. Manju Devi without sending any notice to the complainant. 

During the course of arguments, it is submitted that the electricity connection has been restored and the complainant had submitted that in fact when the electricity connection was disconnected, his son was seriously seriously ill and he was suffering from acute TB and he came under heavy debt in treatment of his son and he has to pay Rs.4000/- for restoration apart from the paying the electricity bill. 

We find that the disconnection of the electricity by OP was not appropriate and is unfair trade practice.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to pay the complainant Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    (RITU GARODIA)                                    (H.C. SURI)                                                   (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                                                MEMBER                            PRESIDENT