Delhi

StateCommission

A/377/2016

MR. NITIN TANDON - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA

26 Oct 2021

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 

 Date of Institution: 12.08.2016

      Date of hearing: 07.10.2021

Date of Decision: ­­­­­­26.10.2021

 

FIRST APPEAL NO.- 377/2016

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Nitin Tandon,

S/o Mr. Sunil Kumar

R/o-44,45,FF, Bhola Nath Nagar,

Delhi-110032

(Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate)                                                                                                                                                                                      …Appellant

 

VERSUS

The Executive Engineer,

BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd.

Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,

                                       (Through: Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate)

         

                                                                                            …Respondent

 

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?        Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                  Yes

 

Present:       None for Appellant

                             Ms. Gunjan, Advocate for Respondent.

 

PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

ORDER

1.           Appellant/Complainant has impugned the order dated 06.06.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East vide which Consumer Complaint No.1106/2013 was dismissed.
2.           We have heard Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant & Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate, Learned Counsel for respondent/opposite party. We have also carefully perused the record as well as record of the District Forum. We have also given considerable thought to the submissions put forth on behalf of the parties.
3.           The short question in controversy revolves in this case is, whether the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 suffers from any infirmity?
4.           The brief facts necessary to decide this controversy are, that appellant/Complainant is registered consumer of a Domestic Electricity connection installed at premises  H.No.-44,45, Flat No.1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Near Mother Dairy , Delhi-110032 by the respondent/opposite party BSES vide CR No.-1210176659 and CA No.-100689278. He had received one bill of Rs.70,940/- in December 2013. He had lodged complaints number of times with respondent. Later he filed the complaint and prayed for disconnection of CA No.100689278 and to wave off the excess bill raised against him. He has also demanded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for harassment, mental agony and pain besides litigation charges Rs.15,000/-.
5.           Before the Forum respondent/Opponent had filed written statement and submitted in evidence electricity bills, an affidavit of complainant and a declaration signed by the complainant.
6.           Complainant had filed rejoinder to the written statement. He had denied all the contentions of opposite party and reaffirmed the averments made in his complaint. However, there was no specific denial.
7.            A perusal of record shows that respondent/opponent has given a “FINAL NOTICE FOR TRANSFERING DUES” vide letter No. 71/490 dated 04.10.2013 which mention that outstanding dues on complainant are Rs.57586/- against CA No.100837633 in the name of Mr. Sunil Tandon (father of the appellant/complainant). These outstanding dues were transferred in the name of complainant in CA No.100689278. The details of outstanding amount has also been submitted by the respondent/opponent. The said connection was disconnected with effect from 24.11.2010 after a new connection was installed. Under this process, the outstanding dues are of Rs.57,586/-.
8.           A perusal of the affidavit filed by complainant especially point no.5 & 6, it is clear that complainant will clear all outstanding dues if any in his name as per affidavit given to opponent.
9.           The complainant has also submitted a declaration running into two pages signed by himself as well as his two witnesses for clearing any pending dues in case he takes new electricity connection. This forms an agreement between complainant and BYPL and complainant will remain consumer of BYPL. The said agreement authorizes respondent/opponent for supply and regularization of electricity supply to the complainant. A perusal of all the electricity bills submitted by the complainant from June 2011 to August 2013 reflects that the complainant’s pattern of payment was not in time and amount was left in many bills. The balance amount has further enhanced the dues on complainant.
10. The appellant has challenged the impugned order inter alia on the grounds that:

the Ld. District Forum erred in coming to a conclusion while passing the impugned order thereby ignoring the documentary evidence placed on record by the Appellant the order passed by the Learned Forum is based on mere allegation/averments made by the respondent the Learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the appellant has filed documentary evidence in his support, which was proved by the Appellant but the Learned District Forum did not consider the documents and the bill and the Learned District Forum did not consider the present bill

11. It is the admitted case of parties that the appellant herein Mr. Nitin Tandon had applied for new connection on 01.09.2010 and the same was installed on 16.09.2010 with CA No.100689278 at House No. 44-45, Flat No.1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. CA No. 100837633 was already in the name of Mr. Sunil Tandon, father of the appellant. Electricity connection in the name of Mr. Sunil Tandon was disconnected on 24.11.2010.
12. Therefore, it is clear that appellant had applied for electricity connection on 01.09.2010 i.e. before electricity connection in the name of his father was disconnected on 24.11.2010. Both connections were at the same premises.
13. In absence of specific denial, inspection dated 23.05.2013 by the respondent is also not disputed. During this inspection it was found that the supply of the disconnected connection bearing CA No.100837633 in the name of father of the appellant had been extended from CA No.100689278 in the name of appellant.
14. The supply was disconnected due to outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.57,586/- . Pursuant to this inspection notices dated 26.08.2013 and 04.10.2013 were sent and not replied and as dues were not paid, supply was disconnected.
15. The stand taken by the respondent is that dues are of the disconnected connection which was registered in the name of father of the appellant. The dues are on the premises and therefore appellant is liable to pay.  It is also the case of respondent that while applying for new connection the appellant has given affidavit dated 26.08.2010 that “I undertake to clear all accumulated/outstanding dues against the premises and license is authorised to recover the same from me......”
16. It has also been the case of respondent that dues got transferred on appellant’s name as per law.
17. We are of the considered view that Learned District Forum has passed reasoned order and had not ignored any documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant. The Forum is not suppose to discuss each and every bill on record including the current bill.
18. The affidavit dated 26.08.2010 of the appellant as discussed in para supra. Besides this, the appellant had also undertaken vide his declaration/undertaking at S.No.9 he undertook to pay any sum which may be found to become payable to BRPL with regards to all liabilities personally as well as by means of movable and immovable properties.
19. It has been rightly argued on behalf of respondent that the dues were qua the premises. In view of affidavit dated 26.08.2010 & declaration-cum-undertaking (especially S.NO.9), the fact that the appellant undertook to pay any sum which may be found to become payable to BRPL with regard to all liabilities personally as well as by way of movable & immovable properties, the electricity connection in the same premises in the name of Mr. Sunil Tandon, father of the appellant was disconnected for want of non-payment of dues(father of the appellant had also appeared in this matter earlier), we are of the view that dues are liable to be paid by the appellant & the BSESYPL/BRPL had rightly raised the demand from the appellant. The appeal is devoid of merits, hence dismissed.
20. The impugned order is upheld.
21. Parties shall bear their own cost.
22. Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. Record of District Forum be sent back alongwith copy of this order for information.
23. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

 

(PINKI)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

 

(BIMLA KUMARI)

Member (Female)

 

PRONOUNCED ON

26.10.2021

 

 

 

ad