Delhi

StateCommission

A/420/2017

DILIP KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHESH DATT SHARMA

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  04.09.17

           Date of Decision:      11.09.17

 

First Appeal No. 420/2017

In the matter of:

           

Dalip Kumar Gupta

S/o Sri Babu Ram Gupta

R/o 3/130, Lalita Park

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-92.                                                                                                                     …Appellant

 

                                                                        Versus

 

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd.

Through its Director

Shakti Kiran Building,

Karkardooma

Delhi.                                                                                                                         …Respondent

                

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

          Complainant has challenged order dated 26.07.17 passed by District Forum in CC No. 170/17 vide which it was held that complaint did not fall within definition of complaint u/s 2 (1) ( C ) Consumer Protection Act. So the complaint was dismissed in limini.

2.       The facts are that complainant is occupying premises No. 3/130, Lalita Park, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi-92 since 2000.  He claimed himself to be irrevocable licencee granted by its erst while owner Sri P.C.Keinth, who is NRI of Netherland.  He had been a caretaker of the building.   He obtained  electricity connection vide CA No. 151356 in the name of owner.  In 2014  some property dealers made an attempt to take illegal possession of the premises which led to civil and criminal litigation.  He filed civil suit  titled as Shiv Shakti Sansthan vs. Dalip Kumar Gupta in which he was granted temporary relief for one month.  Since procedure in civil court  was not efficacious  and lengthy, he chose to file the present complaint.

3.       OP’s officials illegally disconnected electricity in the first week of Nov., 2015 and that too without giving prior notice to the complainant. He approached OP for restoration of electricity or grant of new connection.  OP refused.  He filed a complaint for restoration of electricity with damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- or grant of new connection to him.

4.       The District Forum found that complainant stated that preliminary issue in the civil suit has been decided against him.  The status of the complainant as to in which capacity he is occupying whether as licencee or lessee or as a caretaker is in dispute.  His claim can be adjudicated only in civil court.  Complainant has already filed a civil suit.  Now he cannot be allowed to invoke jurisdiction of consumer forum.  For this reliance may be placed on decision of National Commission in Damyanti Kanti Lal Shah vs. Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. I (2016)CPJ 235.

5.       During hearing on admission counsel for appellant submitted that remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedy.  Similar arguments have been considered by the National Commission in Damyanti Kanti Lal Shah vs. Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. I (2016)CPJ 235 (Supra) and rejected.

6.       We do not find any merit in the appeal.  The same is dismissed in limini, 

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          Copy of order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                           (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL