DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.698/09
Shri Narender Kumar Parti
S/o Shri Yashwant Rai Parti
R/o B-1/38, (FF & SF)
B- Block between G Block
Hauz Khas
Near Citi Bank ATM
New Delhi-110016. ….Complainant
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
Through its Business Manager –
Commercial Officer
BSES Bldg, Room No.206-207
Adhchini, Near IIT Gate
New Delhi-110029
ALSO AT:
Legal Department
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
Andrews Ganj
New Delhi. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.09.2009
Date of Order : 18.08.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Monika A. Srivastava
The present complaint has been filed for restraining the OP from adopting unfair trade practice, restraining demand raised by the OP for Rs.2,69,144/-. It is further prayed to restrain the OP from disconnecting the electric supply to the complainant CR No.2550042972 and connection No.2550096343 in the premises of the complainant and compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh and costs.
It is the case of the complainant that the father of the complainant entered into collaboration agreement with the builder for constructing their property and in terms of the said agreement the first and second floor of the property came to the share of the father of the complainant and the remaining portion was taken over by the builder. After the construction was completed separate electricity connections were required for each floor applications for the same were made to Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). The DVB prepared final payable bill by 23.04.2002 demanding a sum or Rs.8590/- and it was stated that before sanction of new electricity connections, the entire outstanding bills pertaining to the said property were required to paid. Thereafter, the DVB after receiving the entire outstanding sanction four electricity connections and asked to make security deposits, connection charges etc.
After payment of the entire outstanding dues, the then Delhi Vidyut Board sanctioned four electricity connection and asked to make payment of security deposit, connection charges etc. and the same were paid by four different receipts as per details given below:
Receipt No.
22664 Dated 09.05.2002 Rs.7,795/-
22665 Dated 09.05.2002 Rs.21,485/-
22666 Dated 09.05.2002 Rs.9,375/-
22667 Dated 09.05.2002 Rs.21,485/-
It is the case of the complainant that after passing of seven years complainant got a notice dated 24.07.2009 wherein it was stated that an amount of Rs.2,69,144/- is outstanding against the above referred temporary K. No. 2551L 3510414 and it was stated that though permanent domestic connections were provided to them, the temporary bill has still not been cleared. Therefore the outstanding amount would be transferred to their present connection K. No. 25510B081764 without any further notice. The letter is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-9.
It is stated by the complainant that as per policy of the OP, new connection is sanctioned only when the entire outstanding is paid which in this case stood paid on 17.02.2002. It is also stated that OP cannot raise a demand after a period of seven years from the date of sanctioning of electricity connection and their demand is barred by time. It is further stated that this demand of Rs.2,69,144/- is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and in addition, the threat was given to the complainant to comply with the demand failing which their electricity connection would be disconnected.
In their reply, the OP states that it came to their notice that the complainant had a temporary connection vide K No. 2551L3510414 and the consumer had not paid the bill. It is also stated that there was no threat given by them to the complainant and the OP was ready to settle the case. This reply has been filed by the BSES Rajdhani which came into existence after DVB being taken over by Govt of NCT of Delhi in collaboration with BSES Rajdhani.
Evidence of both the parties as well as written arguments are on record.
It is seen from the records that an evasive reply has been filed by the OP wherein they have not given any reason for raising a demand of Rs.2,69,144/- after a period of seven years. However, in their written arguments they have reproduced Section 44 of Delhi Electricity Supply Code which does not pertain to the disputed subject. The said section pertains to a complaint being entertained by OP and their response time.
In an application filed by the complainant, the complainant has placed on record order No.16/19 May 2008 passed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which is applicable to the said case. It is reproduced here:
- Direct the discoms to write off the principal dues against sale of power during DESU/DVB period in respect of the private electricity consumers and to waive off their late payment surcharge as well pertaining to that period only, except the cases under litigation at any forum at any level.
- ……..
- ……..
After perusing the record it is evident that the OP has no locus to raise the illegal demand of Rs. 2,69,144 in view of the order passed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 16/19 May 2008. This demand could not have been raised and the OP is therefore found guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice by raising a demand which is not legally permitted. The complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental harassment to the complainant. This amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which the amount shall be paid with interest @ of 5 % per annum till the date the said amount is paid.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties, on their application. Order be uploaded on the website.
