DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 910/14
Mr. Anupam Tripathi
R/o B-55, 5th Floor
Retreat Apartments
20 IP Extension, Patparganj
Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainant
Vs.
BSES Yamuna Power Limited
Shakti Kiran Building
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 032 …Opponent
Date of Institution: 26.09.2014
Judgement Reserved on : 07.03.2018
Judgement Passed on: 12.03.2018
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by Mr. Anupam Tripathi against BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant Anupam Tripathi, the Managing Partner of The Practice, Advocates & Consultants (Law Firm) have their office at B-55, Retreat Apartments, 20, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-92 to which BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) has been supplying power and electricity for the last many years. On 07.06.2014, the staff of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) under the garb of meter reading and supplying the electricity bill for the month took keys of the office of complainant from the security guard and disconnected the electricity to office premises due to non-payment of dues. 7th being the Sunday, the complainant was not there to answer them and on 09.06.2014, upon resuming work at the office, the complainant was shocked to know that there was no electricity in his office premises. Upon checking the meter room, it was discovered that electricity had been disconnected when the office was closed.
The complainant on 09.06.2014, visited office of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) at District Laxmi Nagar and made payments of all pending dues amounting to Rs. 19,620/- and applied for reconnection. Alongwith the application, the complainant was asked to submit a number of documents, which was for the purpose of delaying the connection. The complainant deposited all the documents alongwith the application on 10.06.2014 and got acknowledgement of device installation order at 1.52 p.m. with an expected site visit for reinstallation of the meter provided as 11.06.2014. He was losing work business and money and his entire office had come to a standstill due to the lack of power supply.
He made request to Mr. Deepak Benjamin, the business manager at the office of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) for resumption of electricity as per the order. He was assured electricity by the next day. On the next day, when he made a call at customer care centre, he was promised that the meter would be installed in the next 24 hours, however, the same was not done.
On 11.06.2014, the complainant discovered that no meter had been installed as yet. He was shocked to know this. He made a call at customer care number where he was re-assured that the meter would be installed within 24 hours. He was also informed that the meter had already been sanctioned and the order for the same was sent out, however, this news gave him little comfort since the meter still had not been installed which continued to affect his office work.
On 15.06.2014, the complainant was informed by his security guard that no meter had been installed. It was a fourth day after the expected date of installation. The complainant again made a call at customer care where he was informed that the meter would be installed within 24 hours. Even his assistant called at the office of OP and on 15.06.2014, two more calls were made. On 16.05.2014, the complainant decided to call the senior officials of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP). A call was made to Mr. Deepak Benjamin, but he did not receive any answer. However, a new meter was installed finally on 17.06.2014 i.e. 07 days after the order had been issued. He was asked to pay Rs. 700/- for installation which was paid by his security guard. No receipt was issued for this.
It has been stated that during the period between 09.06.2014 and 17.06.2014, due to non supply of electricity by the respondent, despite payment to them, this amounts to gross deficiency on the part of respondent. Even large number of exotic fish and costly marine life that was living in 5 feet large aquarium in his office died due to non supply of power. Some of the fish were costing Rs. 5,000/- a pair. This damage and loss was caused due to deficiency of the respondent.
A legal notice was issued to the respondent on 17.07.2014. Thus, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation on account of loss of business; Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering and Rs. 50,0000/- as cost of litigation.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP), they have taken various pleas such as the complainant Anupam Tripathi was not their registered consumer. Their registered consumer was Shri Prakash Chander having CA No.100078160. It has been stated that the complainant has not paid his bill since 29.01.2014 and on 06.06.2014; supply of CA No. 100078160 was disconnected on non-payment of electricity dues. The complainant was told when he visited their office that the connection can be restored only on payment of pending dues.
The complainant completed commercial formalities for reconnection of supply on 10.06.2014 including payment of outstanding dues and submission of required documents as the complainant was not the registered consumer. He had to submit the authority letter of registered consumer alongwith an affidavit and ID of registered consumer and himself. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities. Thereafter on 10.06.2014 the complainant was issued a reconnection receipt wherein time of reconnection was mentioned as 07 days which was as per procedure. On 18.06.2014, the connection was restored. Thus, it has been stated that there was no harassment or deficiency in service on the part of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP).
4. Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.
5. In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself. He has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the contents of the complaint.
In defence, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) have examined Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta, Assistant Finance Officer, who have deposed on affidavit and reiterated the contents of the reply.
6. We have heard the complainant in person who is an advocate by profession and Ld. Counsel for OP. It has been argued on behalf of OP that complainant was not a consumer as the connection was not in his name, but in the name of his father Shri Prakash Chandra. Secondly, the consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the presence of Electricity Act 2003. Thirdly, there was no deficiency on their part as the connection was restored within 7 days as per the supply order and the complainant have failed to put on record in respect of the damages he has suffered.
On the other hand, complainant have argued that he was the consumer under the Act as he was the permissive user of the electricity. Secondly, he has argued that consumer forum was having jurisdiction which was an additional remedy under the Act. Thirdly, he has argued that there was deficiency on the part of BSES and he suffered damages on account of non supply of electricity during the period of 7 days.
The first and foremost point that arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant was a consumer or not. The plea taken on behalf of OP has been that electricity connection has been in the name of Shri Prakash Chandra, who is the father of the complainant. To ascertain as to whether the complainant has been a consumer or not, a look has to be made to the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The relevant portion for the same is reproduced hereunder:
2(1)(d) “consumer means any person who, -
- -
- [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
A bare reading of this section shows that the person who avails any services for a consideration is the consumer or the person who avails services with approval of the person who has hired the services also becomes consumer.In the first place, the person who has actually availed the services becomes the consumer and in the second place, a person who has availed services also becomes a consumer if he has availed the services with the approval of the first one.
The word “approval” used in the section has significance for the second person to be treated as a consumer. The strict interpretation of the word “approval” implies an express permission on the part of first person, but if the word “approval” has been given liberal interpretation, it includes implied consent or action on the part of the first person.Thus, it depends upon the relationship between the parties as to whether the word “approval” is to be liberally construed or literally.
Here, in the present case, Shri Prakash Chandra, the father of the complainant, is the registered consumer of BSES.Since the relationship between the complainant and registered consumer of BSES is of father and son, it can be said that the complainant was having implied approval to use the connection and by doing so, he has availed the services of BSES with the approval of his father, who is the registered consumer of BSES.Thus, he falls under the definition of “consumer” for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act.Therefore, the first argument of Ld. Counsel for OP goes.
Coming to the second argument advanced on behalf of OP was that the consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the presence of Electricity Act.Though, counsel for OP have placed reliance on two of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad; CA no. 5466 of 2012 and Venkatachalam vs. Ajit Kumar C. Shah & Ors.; Civil Appeal no. 869-870 of 2003, where it has been laid down that rights of the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act were not taken away by that of the Electricity Act.Though, reliance has been placed on these two judgments, but Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act were in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.Thus, the law is well settled that the remedy under the consumer Protection Act has an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.Therefore, this plea of Ld. Counsel for OP also goes.
The third and the last argument which has been advanced on behalf of OP has been that BSES Yamuna Power Limited have provided the electricity to the complainant within a period of 7 days which was mentioned in their installation order (Annex.C-3).However, complainant have stated that under Regulation 51 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code of Performance Standard Regulation 2007, the company is bound to reconnect the connection within maximum two working days.Further, he has stated that under Regulation 65 of the Code, BSES has to pay compensation in case reconnection was not done within two working days.They have further argued that complainant have not put anything on record to show that he has suffered damages due to delay in reconnection.
To appreciate this argument, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record.The first and foremost document which is to be gone through is Annexure C-3 which is installation order.If this installation order is perused, it is noticed that it has been stated in the order that expected days to resolve was “07 days from the application date” which was 10.06.2014.
It is the case of the complainant himself that the electricity was restored within 7 days.On the face of it, when BSES Yamuna Power Limited have given 7 days to resolve the dispute, the question of delay in reconnection does not arise.As far as reference to Regulation 51 of the Code was concerned, under Regulation 61, it has been stated that it is the minimum standard which was expected from BSES.These regulations are the regulations in respect of maintaining minimum standard.It is not the case of the complainant that BSES have not complied with the regulations. Even otherwise also, when BSES have given the expected days to resolve as “7 days” in their installation order, the complainant was having notice that BSES Yamuna Power Limited have to take 7 days for restoration.
When BSES have given reconnection within the stipulated period i.e. 7 days, it cannot be said that BSES Yamuna Power Limited was at fault which amounts to deficiency in service.Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of BSES Yamuna Power Limited.Even otherwise also, from the complaint as well as the evidence brought on record, it is noticed that in Para 16 of the complaint and the evidence, the complainant have deposed that due to non-supply of electricity during the period of 7 days, a large number of exotic fish have died.Except this, there is nothing on record to show that due to non supply of electricity during this period, he has suffered loss of practice, the oral argument which was advanced by him during the course of arguments.His merely placing on record Profit & Loss Account Statement for the year 2014 have no bearing.In the absence of any pleading in the complaint, the plea taken on behalf of BSES Yamuna Power Limited that complainant have not suffered any loss due to non supply of electricity during the period of 7 days and there was no deficiency on their part holds good.
Before parting with, it would not be out of place to mention that it is the case of BSES (OP) that supply was disconnected due to nonpayment of bill by the complainant since 29.01.2014.Thus, supply was disconnected on 06.06.2014.This fact has not been mentioned by the complainant who have filed the complaint making out a case of deficiency for delay in reconnection.The fact that complainant himself was at fault which led to disconnection and this fact has not been stated by him in his compliant, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands.It is the fundamental principle of law that he who comes to the court should come to the court with clean hands.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case of any deficiency on the part of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) has been made out.The complaint is devoid of any merit which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
