DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.266/2010
M/s Bentex Towers Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director
Basement & 1st floor,
Kaushilya Park, Hauz Khas
New Delhi-110049 ….Complainant
Versus
1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Hauz Khas, District South,
New Delhi
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Corporate Legal and Enforcement Cell
Near Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi …...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 24.10.2010
Date of Order : 08.06.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant through its director. It is stated that the complainant is the owner and in possession of the basement and ground floor in property No.14, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi which was sealed and electricity was disconnected and meters were removed by the OPs. It is stated that after desealing of the property the complainant applied for new electricity connection on 31.10.2009 vide application No.1000079501 with the OPs to be installed in the basement of the abovesaid property. It is stated that “the opposite party has not raised any objection on the said application and the said application stand duly accepted by the opposite party as per law.” It is further stated that “the opposite party is under legal obligation to provide new electricity connection to the complainant. That the complainant waited for time but there was no response from the opposite party. Ultimately the complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party No.1 and inquired from opposite party No.1 as to why the complainant has not been provided with the electricity connection till date.” It is, however, submitted that the OP No.1 informed the complainant that a bill of Rs.42110/- was due against the ground floor of the said building and electric connection cannot be provided to the complainant unless and until the said bill of Rs.42110/- be paid to the OPs. It is stated that after adjustment and deduction in the bill of Rs.42110/- the OPs asked the complainant to deposit Rs.33,753/- with the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.33752/- on 08.02.10 in cash to the OPs but the OPs again asked the complainant to deposit a bill of Rs.842396.23 which was due against the said building and told the complainant to pay the said amount. It is submitted that the owner of the first floor of the abovesaid property was also facing the same problems and ultimately approached this forum. This forum vide its order dated 11.03.10 in the matter of Vikas Gupta Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. directed the OPs to install the electricity connection at the first floor of abovesaid premises. It is further stated that the complainant again approached the OP No.1 and informed it that the electricity connection at the first floor of the property had been got installed and there was no reason to deny the electricity connection to the complainant but the OPs failed to provide the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant. Hence, claiming itself to be consumer, the complainant has filed the present complaint. It is prayed that OPs be directed to:-
“a) provide the electricity connection to the house of the complainant i.e. basement in property No.14, Kaushalya Park, Haus Khas, New Delhi 110049 and/or
b) award an amount of Rs.95,000.00 (Ninety Five thousand only) to the complainant for financial loss and mental harassment caused to the complainant by the opposite parties and also award Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as the cost of the litigation.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant applied for new connection but, however, there were previous dues pending which were to be paid by the complainant on CRN No.2551123293 for a sum of Rs.12,540/-. It is further stated that dues were also pending on CRN No.2551145755 for a sum of Rs.858150/- as outstanding payable by the complainant to the OP and due to this reason the grant of electricity connection was rejected by the OP. It is submitted that against CRN No.2551145755, a new K No.2551L5390716 was installed on 18.11.03 in the name of Kiran Sabhal. According to site report dated 30.10.09 meter No.27055337 was found at the site and the record of the same was not in the billing system. After the photography meter No.27055337 was taken on 11.11.09 and after creating the record of meter No.27055337 in the system, the bill of Rs.858150/- was raised on the basis of units 160056 KVAH recorded in the meter. It is submitted that on 06.01.10 the photography was carried on the same building and the meter No.27055337 was not found there which was removed from the actual place by the complainant in fear of outstanding dues. It is stated that on the same building at present there is no connection in the name of M/s Adcom Net but the previous dues were pending against CRN No.2551123293. Against this name the meter was installed on 12.12.07 and the meter was removed on 24.11.09 as the previous dues pending against this connection were Rs.12540/-. Hence, the application of the complainant for new connection of electricity was rejected for the same ground. Deficiency in service on the part of the OP is denied. Prayer is for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed affidavit of Sh. Satish Chopra, Director in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sharad Pandey, A. V. President has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the OP. Counsel for Complainant has filed written arguments thereafter. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not disputed that during the pendency of the complaint the electricity meter in the premises of the complainant has been installed. Therefore, that grievance of the complainant stands resolved. We do not know whether electricity connection in the premises of the complainant previously used to be for commercial purpose or whether connection provided to the complainant during pendency of the complaint is for residential purpose or commercial purpose. Complaint has been filed on behalf of the complainant by its Director. Therefore, complainant is atleast not a proprietorship concern and is being run by more than one person. Hence, we do not find it fit case to award any compensation.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
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 08.06.17.
