DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1310/2007
Sh. R.A.S. Kushwaha
S-I, 343, Sadiq Nagar,
New Delhi ……Complainant
Versus
BSESRPL, Enforcement Wing
(South District)
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi ..…Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.01.07 Date of Order : 28.12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant was having a electricity meter bearing No.13535688 (old meter no.-3222426) installed at his Govt. allotted flat No. 343, Sector 1, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi. Total number of electricity meters installed over there including the Complainant’s was 7. On 01.06.2006, all the meters installed at the premises were burnt due to some technical fault. A complaint was made to the Manager BRPL, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to reinstall the burnt meter and an FIR was also lodged at P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi through Central Government Employee Residents Welfare Association. In August, 2006 OP installed six meters at flat nos.I/338, I/339, I/340, I/341, I/342 & I/343 instead of 7 meters. After reinstallation of the meter, he started receiving the electricity bills as usual and was making payment. Suddenly on 14.05.07 an inspection was carried out by the OP’s team and only then he was informed that the meter which was allotted to him was connected to flat No. I/344 and there was no meter installed at flat No.I/344 and the electricity bill which he had been paying regularly was for the electricity consumed by flat No. I/344. As per inspection report, he had allegedly committed direct theft of electricity and a theft bill was raised in this regard for a sum of Rs.71,652/- for no fault on his part. He made the representation to OP appraising that he had no control over the said electricity meter and that the occupants of flat No. I/344 had been making unauthorized use of electricity meter allotted to him and he submitted that the case was not a case of theft of electricity but it was a case of wrong connection made intentionally or by mistake by OP staff and, therefore, appropriate investigations be made at the end of OP towards withdrawal of the theft bill raised against him. In the meanwhile, he received summons from the court of Sh. Rakesh Tewari, ASJ, Special Court (Electricity) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He had to engage a lawyer who applied and obtained bail for him on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- in the said criminal case of theft of electricity. He lodged a police complaint with P.S. Defence Colony for conducting an appropriate investigation into the matter. On 12.10.2007, he appeared through his lawyer in the Special Court and made his appropriate submissions and thereafter, the OP withdrew its case on the same date. The Complainant has further stated that on account of the negligence on the part of the OP he had suffered mental torture and also social harassment being a gazette officer in Central Government as he was impleaded in a false criminal case beside financial loss. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and negligence, complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OP to compensate for making him suffer on account of false criminal case of theft of electricity by making payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on account filing a false criminal case of theft of electricity against the Complainant, instead of hearing the Complainant on its representation made in this regard.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation as arose in the Special Court proceedings.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant as cost of the litigation of the complainant.
OP in the written statement has stated that the inspection of the premises bearing H. No. S-I/343 Sadiq Nagar, Hauz Khas was carried out by the Enforcement Team on 14.05.07 wherein the user of the supply was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by way of illegal means. As per the statement of the bill, meter bearing13117793 was installed in the premises of the Complainant but outgoing of the meter no.13117793 was found connected in the other premises No. S-I/344 and consumer of S-I/344 had not shown any bill at the time of inspection but supply through the above meter was found being used in the premises of flat No.344 and the consumer of flat No.343 did not allow to remove meter and illegal wires. There was a fire in the meters and 6 new meters were installed and flats No. 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 and 343 were burnt due to short circuit on 01.06.06. Complainant was receiving the bill of his neighbour (though in his own name) but the bills paid by him were too much on the lower side. At the time of inspection of the premises of the Complainant, the connected load was found to be 7.883 KW which clearly showed that the payment made by the Complainant were on the lower side. The load report and the photographs taken at the site clearly depicted that the Complainant was using all the electrical appliances but was paying much less than what he was actually liable to pay. After considering the fact that the Complainant was making the payments of the regular bills raised upon him the OP took the decision to quash the inspection and withdraw the entire amount of Direct Theft of Electricity. A load 7.883 KW (DX) being used by Sh. R.A.S. Kushwaha for domestic purpose was found running directly on BSES system. The OP had filed the case against the Complainant in the Special Court and vide order dated 12.10.07 the case was dismissed as withdrawn and, hence, no case is made out. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP. He has admitted that meter No. 13117793 was allotted to him but according to him regular bills were raised in respect to the said meter and he was paying the same without any delay.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. N. K. Gupta, Sr. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have gone through the file very carefully.
Parties have failed to mark annexure nos. or exhibit nos. on the corresponding documents.
According to the complainant, Electric Meter No. 13535688 (Old Meter No. 32224267) was installed in his Flat No. 343, Sector I, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi. At the same time, his admitted case is also that meter No. 13117793 was also installed in his premises. Direct theft of electricity was made against Meter No. 13117793. Thus, it appears that two electric meters were installed in or connected with the premises of the complainant. Direct theft of electricity case was not pursued in the special court. It was withdrawn by the OP on 12.10.2007. Therefore, the fact whether the complainant was in fact involved in a case of direct theft of electricity was not decided on merits. In any case, we are of the considered opinion that if in the view of the complainant he had been impleaded in a false criminal case of direct theft of electricity, we should have prosecuted the OP for granting compensation by filing a civil suit. The questions involved in the complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner. In order to decide the controversy between the parties, the parties are required to lead evidence, witnesses are to be put to test of cross-examination. No deficiency in service has been made out. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as the appropriate remedy for the complainant was to file a civil suit for damages.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to file a civil suit for damages according to law.
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 28.12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
