DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.262/2010
Sh. Vinod Gupta
14, third 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 : 24.04.2010
Date of Order : 08.06.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Complainant has stated that on 11.03.10 he had applied for a new connection telephonically as the previous connection installed on the third floor in his name had become dormant. He is the owner and occupant of the premises bearing No.14, Third 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. Subsequently, the same was got transferred in the name of the complainant vide CRN No.2550096142. 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 in the third floor of the said building alongwith other meters installed in the other floors. Subsequently, the above building was de-sealed by the MCD on 10.12.08. However, the same was rented out in the month of February, 2010 and before that the same had remained vacant. He applied for new connectionvide application No.R1103100000114 and complied with all the formalities. It is submitted that the request of the complainant was rejected on March 16, 2010 on the basis of false and frivolous ground i.e. documents not provided. It is stated as follows:-
“l. 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 parties to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.50,000/- 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 March 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.12,540/- in respect of CRN No.2551123293 alongwith a huge sum of Rs.858150.00 on 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 were Rs.12540/-. Hence, the application of the complainant for new connection of electricity was rejected on 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, General 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, that grievance of the complainant stands resolved. Since, according to the complainant himself, his old meter had become dormant, he had to apply for a new connection which clearly means that he was in arrears of electricity dues at the time of applying for a new connection. 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.
