Delhi

North East

CC/83/2021

AVANISH JANGID - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED THROUGH IT'S CEO/LEGAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 83/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Avanish Jangid S/o Sh. Mohan Bir Singh R/o A-425, Street No.1, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
		BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through it’s CEO/Legal Manager Shakti Kiran Building Opp. Karkardooma Court Karkardoom Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                                   DATE OF ORDER:		07.06.21 06.01.23 27.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that he is the Attorney of his Grandfather Sh. Ram Phal. Sh. Ram Phal got a domestic electricity supply connection vide CRN No. 1260015094 (now CA No. 101503642). The Complainant has submitted that he is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant paid Rs. 14,000/- to the Opposite Party on 01.05.21 against the all pending dues in respect of abovementioned electricity connection. The Complainant sent email to the Opposite Party on 07.03.21 for correction of the name in the electricity connection in pursuance of order dated 18.01.19 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate 04 Shahdara, Karkardoom Court, Delhi. However, the Opposite Party misled the Complainant through its email reply dated 09.03.21 that it was not feasible to change the name in the live connection. It is the case of Complainant that practically it is feasible according to the guidelines and rules of the Opposite Party. This amount to unfair trade practices on the part of Opposite Party. On 10.03.21, Opposite Party has negligently disconnected his electricity supply without listing his grievance and without giving him any notice. This has caused mental agony and insult to the Complainant. On 01.05.21, the Complainant paid total dues of     Rs. 14,000/- for correction/change in the name in the electricity connection but despite that the Opposite Party did not restore his electricity supply. On 21.05.21, the Opposite Party through Mr. Kuldeep Baliyan alias Kuldeep Kumar, Business manager raised false demand of Rs. 2,05,806/-. Then the Complainant submitted a complaint on 27.05.21 in Police Station, GTB Enclave. Finally, on 08.06.21 the Opposite Party restored his electricity supply in the name of forged consumer. The acts of the Opposite Party amount to unfair trade practice. The Complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 4.5 lakh.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that premises No. A-425 G/F 20 feet No.1 Meet Nagar, Delhi, was electrified through the electricity connection bearing no. 101503642  in the name of Ms. Sunita who happens to be the mother of the Complainant. The possession of the said premises was given to Sh. Ram Phal (Grandfather of the Complainant) by Smt. Sunita on 08.12.18. Sh. Ram Phal never informed the Opposite Party and the electricity connection continued to be in the name of Smt. Sunita. During the period from Nov 2018 to March 2021 only a payment of Rs. 700/- was made on 24.02.19 in respect of the said electricity connection. As a consequence whereof in the month of March 2021 the said outstanding dues were more than Rs. 14,000/-. On account of continued non-payment of electricity dues and after serving the disconnection notices. The electricity supply was disconnected on 10.03.21 i.e. after proximately 25 months of the last payment. The Complainant has wrongly alleged that he was seeking correction of the name of the registered consumer whereas in fact it was not correction in the name rather it was changed of the name of registered consumer for which NOC was sought. It is stated that delay in restoration was only on account of adamant behaviour of the Complainant as the Complainant insisted that electricity is restored in his name. The Complainant did not want the electricity to be restored in the name of Smt. Sunita. The Opposite Party has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite   Party and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Yash Pal Rajpurohit, Manager Division for Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

          Arguments and Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has disconnect his electricity supply without any reason and without any notice. It is also his case that the Opposite Party did not change the name of the registered owner. As per the case of Complainant, the name of the registered owner is Smt. Sunita (mother of the Complainant) whereas the owner of the property is Sh. Ram Phal (Grandfather of the Complainant). The case of the Complainant is that his grandfather i.e. Sh. Ram Phal has executed power of Attorney in his favour and therefore electricity connection should be changed in his name. It is his case that the acts of the Opposite Party amount to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that the disconnection of electricity was done as the electricity bills /charges were not paid for about 25 months ultimately after serving notices to the Complainant electricity supply was disconnected on 10.03.21 and the same was restored in the name of Smt. Sunita on 08.06.21 after receiving payment of Rs. 14,000/- on 01.05.21. It is the case of the Opposite Party that delay in restoration of electricity supply was on account of adamant behaviour of the Complainant that the electricity supply be restored in his name. With effect from 06.07.21 the electricity connection was changed in the name of Sh. Ram Phal. It is the case of Opposite Party if the Complainant wants further change in the name of electricity connection in his name, he has to apply on the basis of documents executed after Dec 2018 or he should file No Objection Certificate issued by Sh. Ram Phal.
8. From the material on record, it is revealed that the electricity supply of the Complainant was disconnected by the Opposite Party. The case of the Opposite Party is that the electricity supply of the Complainant was disconnected after serving him notices. It is important to note that the Opposite Party has not filed on record any proof or document to show that disconnection notice was ever issued or served upon the Complainant. Even no date has been specified when such notice was issued or served to Complainant. Therefore, this plea/ defence taken by the Opposite Party cannot be accepted. Further, from the record it is revealed that electricity supply was disconnected due to non- payment of charges by the Complainant. The Complainant made payment of             Rs. 14,000/- to the Opposite Party on 01.05.21 and the electricity supply was restored on 08.06.21. Thus, it is clear that even after receiving the payment from the Complainant, the Opposite Party took one month and one week for restoring the electricity supply.  No reason has been assigned as to why there was such long delay in restoration of the electricity supply. The case of the Opposite Party is that the delay in restoration of electricity was due to adamant behaviour of the Complainant. This is a very vague plea and not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be believed.
9. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Complainant was without any electricity supply for a long period during the Corona pandemic and summer season. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) is awarded to the Complainant. The Opposite Party shall pay the compensation to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 %p.a. from the date of order till recovery. No order as to costs.
10. Order announced on 27.01.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President