Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/124

BRIJBALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUME DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No.   124 /2017

In re:-

In the matter of 

Brij Bala 

w/o Brij Pal Singh,

E-248, Gali No.-72, 

Mahavir Enclave Part-3

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059            ………..Complainant

 

 VERSUS                               

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

C-2C, Pocket-12

Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058

 

                                                                           Opposite Parties

Coram:    

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)

2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)

3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution: 06/03/2017

Judgment reserved on:17/02/2022 

Date of Decision: 28/02/2022

By: Richa Jindal (Member)

ORDER

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The facts as alleged in the complaint are that :-

 

1. The complainant has domestic connection of OP-1 vide CA NO.-10344897 having sanction load of 2KW at her residence noted above for the last several years. The original meter installed is No. 13367933.

 

2. According to the complainant OP had started harassing the complainant Since May 2015 for the reasons best known to them.

 

3. As per the complainant problems created by OP were as under :-

1. The monthly bills which were being received regularly up-to April 2016 were stopped suddenly in May 2016.

2. One or two bill could be received only after visit to their office.

3. In between a staff visited complainant residence on 15/10/2016 and checked the meter at reading 13885 and recorded (METER OK).

4. OP used to send disconnection notice without any fault of the complainant.

5. In their record, they have shown the meter change. However, complainant’s old meter No. 13367933 which was installed initially is still there.   Whereas in the record they were showing  New No. as 26312097.

6. Whereas the meter reading which was 12515 in April 2016, is shown as 18436 in May 2016. 

7. The complainant’s son went to OP’s office with written complaint with all the sort comings but its staff refused to receive the complaint. 

8. On account of the above deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP’s the present complaint is being filed by the complainant.

2. After hearing the arguments on admission, present complaint was admitted and accordingly notice was issued to the OP on 8-03-2017. OP filed written statement on 17-08-2017.

 

3. The OP filed written statement stating that: 

 

1. the electricity bills were generated regularly as per routine against the said Meter.  In due process, the site was visited on 05.10.2016 and found the meter reading as 13826 and accordingly, as per consumer complaint, Meter was tested on 15.10.2016 and found to be OK.  In course of routine maintenance by MMG, meter number was wrongly punched in the computerized system without actual meter change. The error was detected in site visit report and rectified and further, the bill has been rectified on 11.04.2017 and debited amount of Rs. 725.30 w.e.f. 24.04.2016 to 26.03.2017.  Further, the system  charged 286 units short w.e.f. 24.04.2016 to 26.03.2017 due to meter no. mismatch in system.  

2. Further the disconnection notice was sent to consumer on 18.10.2016 which was generated automatically by system as payment was not received after 15 days of due date.  Meter No. correction has been corrected in system on 03.02.02017.  However, since the Consumer had not made the electricity dues payment after 12.11.2016, current outstanding dues was Rs. 3700/- which is accumulated dues of eight months. 

 

4. Thereafter Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents exhibit CW-1/1 to CW- 1/4. On the other hand Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Authorized signatory of the OP has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibit OPW-A on behalf of OP. 

 

5. Written submissions filed by OP only. 

6. We have heard Counsel for parties and perused the record. That on 18/04/2019, during the arguments, the son of the complainant stated before the commission that he withdrew all the prayers except compensation.  

7. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the parties and perused the record. In view of the aforesaid discussion and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that when there is no material to show that the OP had started harassing the complainant since May 2015. However OP admitted in their reply that in the year 2016 due to routine maintenance by MMG, meter number was wrongly punched in the computerized system without actual meter change from 13367933 to 26312097. However said mistake was duly rectified after the site inspection even before receiving the court notice. Same facts was duly acknowledged by complainant also as the complainant did not file rejoinder and whereas in the year 2019 during arguments, he withdrew all grievances and prayed for compensation only. No case of harassment on the e[art of op has been made out. Which may call for any compensation.

  

8. In view of the above the only controversy in the present case is as to whether complainant is entitled to the compensation or not. After going through the material on record, we are of considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove how he suffered because only disconnection notice was sent by the op but OP never disconnected the electricity connection. The complainant stated that they refused to accept the complaint but we failed to understand that if OP’s were not ready to heard then how come they inspect the site on 15/10/2016 and detected their fault and later on rectified.  

 

9. In the light of facts and circumstances discussed above & the legal proposition, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP’s for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. We, therefore dismiss the present complaint for want of sufficient cause of action. 

 

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 

 

11. File be consigned to record room. Announced on 28.02.2022.