Delhi

East Delhi

CC/279/2013

NISHANT PRAVEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2017

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. 279/13

 

Ms. Nishant Praveen

R/o 3^rd Floor, R-210 B, Plot No. 10

Ramesh Mark, Near Masjid

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                 ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

BSES Yamuna Power Limited

Shakti Kiran Building

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092                                                     ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 10.04.2013

Judgment Reserved on:18.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 19.01.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Ms. Nishant Praveen has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) for deficiency in services. 

2.        The facts in brief are that electricity meter was installed at complainant’s residence at 3^rd floor, R-201B, Plot No. 10, Ramesh Park, Near Masjid, Laxmi Nagar, Delih-110 092,  with Meter No. 14225398 and CRN No. N12301104091, CA No. 103761766 with sanctioned category as Domestic, Energisation Date 13.04.2011.  Complainant paid the electricity bills regularly. 

On 18.02.2013, the meter of the complainant was removed by BYPL staff without complying with the legal process or even having any demand against the complainant.  Complainant’s husband visited the office of respondent several times and had requested to reinstall the meter and restore the electricity connection, but respondent had not restored the connection. 

Thus, the complainant prayed to direct the respondent for reinstallation of connection; Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

In the application for interim relief, the complainant prayed to direct the respondent to connect the electricity supply within 24 hours. 

3.        In the written statement, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) have stated that on 10.06.2005, the premises of the complainant was inspected and it was found that the user was indulging in direct theft of electricity.  A case of theft of electricity was booked on the premises and a bill of Rs. 75,905/- was raised.  They have relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in D.V.B. Vs. Devender Singh WP(C) 1240/2005, Neeraj Kumar Vs. BSES CM No. 362/2007 and in CM(M) 46/2007, where Hon’ble High Court has passed an order dated 10.01.2007 thereby restraining the Consumer Forums as well as the State Commission to entertain and try any matter where issues of Direct Theft or DAE was alleged.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UPPC Ltd. vs. Anis Ahmad has ordered that the consumer fora defer the consideration of issue related to theft of electricity.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its claim, the complainant has examined himself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.   She has also got exhibited documents such as sale deed (Ex.CW1/1), copy of electricity bills (Ex.CW1/2), copy of bill of the Legal Heirs of Mrs. Khurshida Begaum (Ex.CW1/3) and  copy of bill of 2^nd and 4^th floor (Ex.CW1/4).  

            In defence, Shri Saheel Jallal, Asstt. Manager, BSES Yamuna Power Limited has deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

 

 

6.        We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of counsel for OP that they have already installed the meter.  She has also argued that there was a theft bill for an amount of Rs. 75,905/-  on the premises.  The installation of meter have been admitted by counsel for complainant.  The fact that meter has already been installed and there was a theft bill amounting to Rs. 75,905/- on the premises, which the complainant did not disclose.  There was no deficiencies on the part of the complainant.  Thus, there remains nothing in the complaint and the question of compensation does not arise.  That being so, the complaint stands dismissed. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                        Member    

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President