CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.213/2017
- MS. CHARUMATI SHARMA
D/O SHRI(LATE) VP SHARMA
R/o 593. DDASFS FLATS, SECTOR 22,
DWARKA, ND…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LTD.
HEAD OFFICE, B.S.E.S. BHAVAN,
NEHRU PLACE, N. DELHI …..RESPONDENT NO. 1
- PRESIDENT OF INDIA
RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI ….RESPONDENT NO. 2
Date of Institution-05/07/2017
Date of Order- 19/07/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking restoration of electricity connection meter and compensation for damages for the discomfort suffered by the complainant at the hands of OP1 i.e. MD, BSES.
It is a case of the complainant that she had obtained an electricity connection from OP 1 in August, 2008 and has paid every bill for electricity connection. It is stated by the complainant that on 01.02.2013, OP 1 removed the meter without any prior call and justification as a deliberate and deceptive mischief while the complainant was peacefully resting at her home recovering from fever and injury.
It is stated by the complainant that she was under medication from a murderous attack by a property agent. It is also stated that she has filed written complaints, visited office of OP 1 but she has not been able to lodge a written complaint. It is stated by the complainant that since she was left with no remedy against the refusal of OP1 to restore her electricity connection and meter, the complainant filed the case against the OP 1 in Dwarka on 06.02.2013. The matter was referred to the Special Electricity Court, Dwarka and the OP 1 defended by stating that there was theft of electricity by the complainant.
On the other hand, the OP 1 has stated that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to tarnish the image of the OP 1 when there is no negligence/ deficiency in service, nor any unfair trade practice adopted by OP 1. It is stated that the complaint is frivolous, vague, misconceived and has been filed by suppressing material facts. It is stated by the OP 1 that an inspection was carried out on 01.12.2013 at the premises of the complainant and she was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by bypassing the meter and since the matter relates to theft of electricity, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
It is stated that FIR No. 229/13 PS Sector 23, Dwarka under Section 135 of Electricity Act was registered and the charge sheet has also been filed before the special court, Dwarka. It is further stated by the OP that the complainant has filed several civil suits before the civil Court and the same have been dismissed being found without any merit. It is further stated by the OP that the Special Electricity Court was pleased to reject the civil suits filed by the complainant being vague and not disclosing any concrete cause of action. It is also stated that the present complaint is highly time barred as the electricity connection of the complainant was removed on 01.02.2013 and the case has been filed in the year 2017.
It is further stated by the OP has per Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 23.12.2011, in the matter of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. Charan Singh Mann and Anr. CM (M) 2048/2006 and CM No. 16082/2006, has observed that the “the complaint of Charan Singh Mann filed before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has been perused wherein the averment
show that this is a case of DAE as also meter tampering. These orders on a complaint which have been passed by the District Forum could not have been done so them being illegal/ set aside” and as per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case tilted UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs Anis Ahmad held that “the offences referred to under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2013 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum” hence the captioned matter is liable to be dismissed.
It is observed from the record of the case that the complainant has filed the present complaint after her electricity meter has been disconnected. It is clear from the documents on record that the said electricity meter has been disconnected on account of electricity theft for which FIR No. 229/13 PS Sector 23 Dwarka under Section 135 of Electricity Act was registered and the charge sheet has also been filed before the Special Court, Dwarka. Therefore, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs Anis Ahmad that “the offences referred to under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2013 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”, the present complaint is dismissed without order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to both the parties on their application. Order be uploaded on the website.
