DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.149/2010
Sh. Vikas Gupta
14, First Floor
Ch. Dilip Singh Marg,
Kaushiya Park,
Hauz Khas Near Syndicate Bank
New Delhi-110016 ….Complainant
Versus
BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.
(through Assistant General Manager)
District Hauz Khas,
New Delhi …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.03.2010
Date of Order : 08.06.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Complainant has stated that in December, 2009 he had applied for a new connection but despite passing of more than two months and payment of all the bills with respect to other meters previously installed in the premises, OP failed to raise the demand notes and thereby to install the new connection. It is submitted that he applied for a new connection as the previous connection had become dormant. He is the owner and occupant of the premises bearing No.14, First Floor, Ch. Dilip Singh Marg, Kaushiya Park, Hauz Khas, Near Syndicate Bank, New Delhi. Earlier in the said premises there was an electricity connection in the name of Smt. Kiran Sabhal, the previous owner of the premises which was got transferred in the name of the complainant. He made payment of all the bills as and when raised by the OP. On 13.09.07 the entire building was sealed by the MCD and the officials of the OP removed the meter of the complainant installed at the first floor of the said building alongwith other meters installed at the other floors. Subsequently, the above building was de-sealed by the MCD on 10.12.08. However, the same was rented out only on 29.11.2009 and before that the same had remained vacant. He applied for new connection vide application No.R2311090001212 and complied with all the formalities. It is submitted that after great persuasion the OP in the end of February, 2010 handed over the following bills:
Name of R/C | CRN No. | Premises | Bill amount |
Kiran Sabhal | 2550096140 | G. Floor | Rs.42110/- |
Vikas Gupta | 2550096141 | F. Floor | Rs.85880/- |
Vinod Gupta | 2550096142 | S. Floor | Rs.79710/- |
Vinod Gupta | 2551115433 | T. Floor | Rs.00/- |
Kiran Sabhal | 2551145755 | F. Floor | Rs.34,660/- |
It is stated that the OP issued two bills in respect of the first floor of the premises, one in the name of Vikas Gupta and another in the name of Kiran Sabhal. Earlier there were three connections in the name of Kiran Sabhal at the ground Floor, first floor and second floor of the premises. Out of three connections one installed at the first floor was changed in the name of complainant and another connection installed at the second floor was changed in the name of Vinod Gupta. Hence, the bill in respect of CRN No.2551145755 in the name of Kiran Sabhal allegedly installed at the first floor is prima facie wrong and illegal and the same does not exist at the premises. It is submitted as follows:-
“k. That it is submitted that Regulation 16 (iv) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 provides that…. “licensee shall issue the demand note within 7 days of acceptance of application.”… However, in the instant case the opposite party intimated the cancelled of the application for new connection on 03rd April, 2010 and i.e. on the basis of false and frivols grounds. It is further submitted that the complainant has been running from pillar to post to get her electricity connection installed. However, the opposite party willfully and malafidely canceled the request for new connection thereby depriving the complainant to basic need like electricity.”
It is prayed as follows:-
“A. Direct the opposite party to immediately provide the electricity connection to the complainant and;
B. Direct the opposite party to withdraw the impugned bill in respect of CRN No.2551145755, in the name of Kiran Sabhal amounting to Rs.844490 and;
C. Direct the opposite party to revised the bills in the name of Ms. Kiran Sibal CRN No.2550096140 amounting to Rs.42110/-, in the name of Vikas Gupta bearing CRN No.2550096141 for Rs.85880/- and in the name of Vinod Gupta CRN No.2550096142 amounting to Rs.79710 and make the refund of the extra amount taken from the complainant with interest @ of 18% from 08/03/10 to the date of actual payment and;
D. Direct the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as caused to complainant by the opposite parties and/or;
D. Direct the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant applied for new connection in December, 2010. According to the TF report dated 12.03.10 the documents were not provided, incomplete wiring and some of the previous dues were pending against the complainant and because of these reasons the electricity connection was not provided to the complainant and the OP sent the intimation to the complainant. The complainant was supposed to pay a sum of Rs.858150/- in respect of CRN No.2551145755. It is submitted that against CRN No.2551145755, 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 the meter No.27055337 in 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. 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 this 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 was 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 his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Avinash Kumar, G. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
No written arguments have been 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, the first grievance of the complainant stands resolved. The other grievances are with regard to the withdrawal of the impugned bill of Rs.844,490/- in the name of Kiran Sabhal and for issuing revised bills in respect of 3 bills in the name of Ms. Kiran Sabhal, complainant and Sh. Vinod Gupta for Rs. 42110/-, Rs.85880 and Rs.79710/- respectively.
It has not been brought to our notice by either side whether electricity connection in the premises of the complainant has been installed after the settlement of the dispute with regard to the impugned bills or not.
In the written arguments, the counsel for complainant has put a reliance on Regulation 16 (iv ) of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 and has contended that since the OP did not raise any demand after the submission of the application for installation of the meter in the premises by the complainant within 7 days, the action of the OP in not installing the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant was illegal.
Copy of the Regulations of 2007 has neither been supplied to us on behalf of the Complainant nor on behalf of the OP. With our own personal efforts we have been able to lay our hands on the Regulations which apart from regulation 16 (iv) also contains regulation No.2.1 (iv). The scope of regulation 2.1(iv) was considered by a full bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No.2725/05 – BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd., decided on 02.07.09. Para 35 of the judgment is relevant. The same is reproduced as hereunder:-
“35. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that in terms of clause 2.1(iv) of the General Conditions of Supply forming part of Tariff Order dated May 23, 2011 if there are electricity dues against the previous owner or occupant of a premises who transfer the premises to a new owner or occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh electricity connection can be compelled by the Distribution company to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the previous owner or occupant and the distribution company can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of such non-payment.”
In view of the said regulation and the judgment the demand of amounts of the impugned bills from the complainant was perfectly justified. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
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.
