Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/497

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 04.08.2014

Complaint Case. No.497/14                                        Date of order:       20.09.2017

IN  MATTER OF

 Manjit Kaur B-1/127, 1^st Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058                                                           

Complainant

VERSUS

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Maya Enclave, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110058

                  Opposite party

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Ms. Manjit Kaur named above herein the complainant filed the present complaint against BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. herein after referred as the opposite party with averments that the opposite party in her electricity consumption charges bill for June-July 2014 added Rs.1,200/- for increase of 2 KW load and Rs.4,000/- for charges of electricity wires. Whereas the opposite party  did not change any electricity wire. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 5 KW. The opposite party increased the sanctioned load of the complainant to 7KW. There are only two members in the family of the complainant. Therefore, there is no need of more than 5KW of electricity. The complainant prayed that sanctioned load of her electric meter should remain 5KW and excess charges of Rs.5208.08/- be refunded.

            After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply while raising preliminary objections and contesting the complaint on the grounds that there is no discrepancy or mistake in calculation of the bill charges. The opposite party has raised bill of Rs.9,360/- vide bill no. 100091636115 for the billing month of July 2014. Which includes Rs.1,200/- for additional security  deposit as load of the complainant is increased from 5KW to 7KW as per order no.F-11(548) DERC/2009-10 C.F. NO.2273/4557 dated 01.02.2011 of DERC. Three highest maximum demand record of the electricity meter of the complainant were 7KW, 5.32KW and 6.96KW for months of July 2013, August 2013 and September 2013 respectively. Hence these three highest maximum demand rounded of the next higher number comes to 7KW. The electricity consumers are required to pay security deposit as per Regulation 29 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance of Standards Regulations 2007(herein after referred as the Supply Code).

            The bill of the complainant also includes Rs.4,000/- charges towards differential amount of SLDC charges of earlier slab with new slab due to enhancement in sanction load of the complainant as per order no. F17(44)/Engg.DERC/2010-11/CF.2621/5897 dated 20.01.2012 of DERC and as per clause (iii) of Regulation 30 of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance of Standards Regulations 2007(herein after referred as the Supply Code). There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  

              On merits the opposite party asserted that bill of the complainant is prepared as per law, rules and regulations framed by DERC. The bill of the complainant for July 2014 was Rs.9362.45/- which includes current demand of Rs.4154.37/-, security amount of Rs.1,200/- and service line cum development charges of Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, additional amount of Rs.52,00/- has been included as the complainant has used load more than sanctioned load of 5KW. All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and once again prayed  of dismissal of the complaint.

              The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party controverting stand of the opposite party and reiterating her stand taken in the complaint.

              When Ms. Manjit Kaur complainant was asked to lead evidence she tendered her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. She also relied upon letter dated 21.07.2014 and electricity bill dated 04.08.2014.

             When the opposite party was asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt. Ratandeep Kaur CO narrating facts of the reply. The opposite party in support of their case relied upon Annexure-A letter dated 01.02.2011, Annexure-B electricity bills dated 02.08.2013, 04.09.2013 and 04.10.2013, Annexure-C letter of DERC dated 20.01.2012 and Annexure-D letter dated 21.08.2014.

            We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

            From pleadings of the parties, affidavits and documents produced by the parties it is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party charged Rs.1,200/- as security amount towards  increase of 2 KW load and Rs.4,000/- towards service line cum development total Rs.5,200/- in the electric consumption charges bill of the complainant for the month of July 2014. The case of the complainant is that charges of Rs.5,200/- in her electric bill for the month of July 2014 are without any basis and the opposite party has charged excessive amount. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

             Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on the basis of consumption sanctioned load of the complainant was increased from 5KW to 7KW. Therefore, additional security deposit Rs.1,200/- was demanded by the opposite party from the complainant as per Regulation 29 of the Supply Code and Rs.4,000/- were demanded as deferential amount of SLDC charges as per clause (iii) of Regulation 30 of the Supply Code.

            Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to re-write Regulation 29 of the Supply Code. Which runs as under:-

Regulation 29 of the Supply Code-

All new consumers shall pay security at the following rates :-

  Table 3

S.No.	Category	Amount(Rs./KW)
1	Domestic	600
2	Non-Domestic	1500
4	Industrial	1500
5	Agriculture	300
6	Street Light	1500
7	Railway, DMRC	1500
8	Mushroom Cultivation	600
9	Temporary Connection: Upto 3 days Upto 7 days and multiple thereof, in block of 7 days For regular use/construction works	300 500 per 7 days block or part thereof   1.5 times relevant category

 

            It is also worthwhile to reproduce clause (iii) of Regulation 30 of the Supply Code. Which reads as under:-

Regulation 30 of the Supply Code-

            In case the area/colony is electrified by the Licensee, the SLD charges shall be payable by all consumers irrespective of whether it is electrified or un-electrified area. SLD charges, as given in Table-4, shall be leviable.

  Table 4

                               Service Line cum Development Charge

S.No.	Sanctioned Load(KW)	Amount(Rs.)
1	Upto5	3000
2	More than 5 upto 10	7000
3	More than 10 upto 20	11000
4	More than 20 upto 50	16000
5	More than 50 upto 100	31000
6	More than 100 KW (11 KW)	50% of the cost of HT cables/line/switchgear

 

            After hearing heard both the sides at length and going through the material on record and Regulations 29 and 30 of the Supply Code carefully and thoroughly the opposite party has succeeded to show that additional charges are raised by the opposite party as per orders no.F-11(548) DERC/2009-10 C.F. NO.2273/4557 dated 01.02.2011 and F17(44)/Engg.DERC/2010-11/CF.2621/5897 dated 20.01.2012 of DERC and Regulations 29 and 30 rule (iii) of the Supply Code. The complainant has failed to show and prove that the opposite party has raised excessive demand against law, regulations and rules and there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Whereas the opposite party succeeded to prove that the demand is as per rules regulations and law. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Hence there is no merit in the complaint. The same fails and is hereby  dismissed.   

Order pronounced on :      20 .09.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                      ( R.S.  BAGRI )

    MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT