Delhi

StateCommission

A/631/2019

MS. MEENU GULATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :17.01.2020

Date of Decision :24.01.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO.631/2019

In the matter of:

Meenu Gulati,

R/o.54/2 Shastri Park,

Chander Nagar, Delhi-110051.                                                    ………Appellant

Versus

 

            BSES,

Krishna Nagar,

Delhi-110051.                                                                                     ……Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This is a fresh appeal at the  stage of admission. Challenge in the appellant is to order dated 16.09.19 passed by District Forum in CC No.450/17 vide which the respondent/ OP has been directed to reimburse the amount of LPSC of Rs.629.29, to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards mental pain and agony and return two cheques of Rs.3,0000/- and Rs.2,0000/- lying with the respondent.  The present appeal is for enhancing compensation to Rs.2 lakhs instead of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The case of the appellant was that there was consumption charges dues of Rs.9,200/- for electricity against CA no.150842123 at 192, Second Floor, Ram Nagar Extension, Delhi-51  as on 10.04.17. The due date for payment was 28.04.17. Complainant discussed the matter with concerned authorities who accepted three cheques for Rs.4,200/- dated 21.04.17 Rs.3,000/- dated 21.05.17 and Rs.2,000/- dated 21.06.17. The first cheque was cleared, remaining two cheques were not presented by the OP despite repeated requests. OP did not accept current consumption dues by stating that two cheques were yet to be presented. The complainant wrote letter dated 26.07.17 requesting to present remaining two cheques to clear the whole issue but nothing was done. On 28.09.17 official of OP came and informed husband of the complainant on phone that he had come to disconnect the connection. The husband of the complainant informed him that he was little far and would contact the official wherever desired. The official of the OP disconnected the telephonic call and removed the meter without any report in the absence of landlord or tenant. At about 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. when the lady tenant  came, she shouted saying how she should pull on with her small kid in such a scorching heat in absence of electricity. Husband of the complainant approached BSES and requested that disconnection was not called for as that were not at fault and dues were not outstanding because the cheques with OP were not presented for payment and current dues were not accepted till clearance of dues. OP was requested to install the meter as the tenant has small baby and without electricity, it was getting difficult. The OP  told to give cheque of Rs.,8,590/- including amount of two cheques, current dues and LPSC. OP also informed that installation would take place after six days as there was three holidays and three days were required for clearance of cheque.
3. Insult in the street was aggravated when lady tenant shouted. Hence complaint was filed for directing to return the two cheques, reimbursement of LPSC charges and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
4. OP filed a WS pleading that on humanitarian ground the complainant was granted instalments. The first cheque was encashed but remaining two cheques could not be deposited due to over writing. Executive of the OP was sent to the premises to collect fresh cheque where the tenant told that she would inform the complainant. None approached OP to deposit fresh cheque. Disconnection notice was issued despite which dues were not deposited. On receiving the pending dues on 29.09.17 reconnection order was generated.
5. Both the parties led evidence by affidavit. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum noticed that OP has placed on record cheque for Rs.2,000/- dated 21.06.17 but has with held cheque for Rs.3,000/- dated 21.05.17. If there was over writing on cheque dated 21.06.17, OP should have informed the complainant and got  a fresh cheque issued.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Copy of cheque dated 21.06.17 is at page-32 of the appeal file.  There is over writing in figure zero in CA no.150842123. The husband of the appellant submitted during arguments on admission of appeal that the said overwriting was done by the officials of the OP. I am unable to swallow the said argument. It is not the case of the appellant that officials of respondent were inimical to her or that is why they did over writing.
7. The OP/ respondent is not concerned about dispute between the appellant and her tenant. If the tenant protested, it does not mean that complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The same is highly exaggerated when compared with the bill amount of Rs.8,590/-. Consumer Protection Act is not meant for enriching the consumers over night. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.                                                                                                                                                           

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•