Delhi

East Delhi

CC/982/2014

DILIP - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 982/14

Mr. DILIP VERMA

S/O LATE Sh. BRIJ MOHAN

ADD. M.B. 140, SECOND FLOOR

SHAKARPUR DELHI-110092

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Vs

 

BSES YAMUNA POWER Ltd.

6 LAKSHMI NAGAR

1.  

                                                                                                                            ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 27.10.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 22.03.2017

Judgment Passed on: 27.03.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainant Mr. Dilip Verma has filed this complaint against BSES (OP), “Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for deficiency in service. 
2. Complainant Shri Dilip Verma stated in the complaint that he has been using electricity meter no. 1328234 since 2008. He used to pay his bills in time. In January 2012 his meter showing excessive unit for which he made a complaint. On 29/12/2012 his meter was checked and changed to meter no. 14288083 which was showing normal reading. On 25/07/2013, all of a sudden the electricity supply went off, on checking he noticed that meter was not there. He made a police complaint as well as to the office of OP on 26/07/2013. On 29/07/2013, he again made a written complaint at the office and he was told that first he should clear the dues after this his meter will be installed. He got his dues cleared, however he was not provided the new meter. He was sent the bill by post which he received on 15/10/2014, he went to their office where he couldn’t get the satisfactory reply. Thus, he has prayed for installation of meter alongwith compensation for an amount of Rs.19,000/- on account of mental pain and agony. He has further demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.
3. In the reply, BSES (OP) have stated that this forum have no jurisdiction as the complainant was in respect of DAE which was triable under the Electricity Act 2003 only by the Special Court. It is further stated that the prayer was beyond the jurisdiction and power of this forum. It is stated that the meter was removed and send in the sealed bag duly signed by consumer to lab for further investigation/testing, supply was restored by the new meter on the same day. It has further been stated that the case was pending before the Hon’ble Special Court vide case no. 597/15. In nutshell it was stated that it was a theft case and the facts were concealed by the consumer and the prayer made in the complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.
4. In the rejoinder filed by the complaint, the complainant has controverted the pleas of the respondent and has reasserted his version stated in the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint the complainant filed the affidavit and deposed on the affidavit the contents of the complaint. OP have not filed the affidavit in the form of evidence however they have placed on record the documents such as copy of the FIR dated 25/07/2013 in respect of the meter no. 13282345 as well as other documents such as seizure memo, show cause notice for suspected theft and speaking order.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP as the complainant did not appeared and have perused the material placed on record. From the documents placed on record by OP, it has been noticed that this was a theft case registered against Dilip Kumar consumer against meter no. 13282345. When there has been theft case against the complainant in respect of meter no. 13282345 for which the complainant has made, no relief can be given to the complainant as for the theft case this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. That being so, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

       (Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

            MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT