Delhi

East Delhi

CC/753/2014

SHAM SUNDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

23 Sep 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No.753/2014:

In the Matter of:

Sh. Sham Sunder Kapur

R/O. H.No.125/74 New Krishna Nagar,

Gali NO.8, Delhi-110051

Complainant

Vs

B.S.E.S. (Y.P.L.)

Shakti Kiran Building,

Karkardooma Courts,

Delhi-110032

                                                                             Respondent

 

                                                    Date of Admission-25.08.2014

                                                   Date of Order       -23.04.2015

                                                                                   

ORDER

 

Sh.N.A Zaidi,President:

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant is a senior citizen of 80 years of age. It is alleged that the respondent is cheating the complainant since 2002 when they wrongly levied misuse charges and later on withdrew it.  In the second case in 2010 the BYPL staff came to the premises and checked the three meters installed there and no seals of the meters were found broken. He objected and argued with Sh.Sanjay Sharma but no proper reply was given at that time. The BYPL has made a false claim of theft of electricity against the petitioner. He deposited the amount and thereafter brought to the notice of the then Chief Minister, Smt. Sheila Dikshit, and on her intervention some amount was refunded and still Rs.20,000/- is alleged to be pending due. No proper reply has been given. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.20,000/-, compensation and cost.

The respondent instead of filing the WS have filed the dismissal application by taking the plea of jurisdiction on the ground that it is a case of theft.  As per Section 154 of the Electricity Act an offence punishable u/s 135 to 139 shall be triable by a Special Court. Special Courts have been created to determine the civil and criminal liability in case of theft. The complainant could have approached the Special Court in respect of the theft bill.  In the case of B.L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2009 (108) DRJ 239 (DB) it has been held that Civil Court cannot adjudicate upon dispute relating to the theft of electricity and it is only the Special Court which has the jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court in the cases of DVB vs. Devender Singh and Neeraj Kumar vs. BSES have ruled that State Commission or District Forum cannot entertain such matters in which direct theft has been involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UP Power Corporation vs. Anis Ahmed has held that complaint against theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

On 11.08.10 Shri Rajiv Kumar, the user as well as the Registered Consumer, was residing at the premises in question when the inspection was carried out and terminal seals of Meter Nos.23131350, 23131250 and 23131348 were found tampered and they were found slow by 42.08%, 39.05% and 52.31% respectively thereby confirming physical tampering.  The illegal shunt wire P-P and N-N in terminals point behind the meter were also found and it was concluded that it is a case of Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity. A speaking order was passed on 05.10.10. Show cause notices were issued but nobody attended the proceedings. The complainant approached the respondent company for settlement. The respondent informed the Ministry of Power that looking at the old age of the complainant 30% rebate was given to the consumer in the 3 bills raised which were paid by the complainant.  The complainant approached the Grievance Cell of the GNCT of Delhi and Hon’ble Chief Minister and another rebate of Rs.19,738/- was allowed in the three mentioned cases by waiver of penalty considering the old age of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any further undue benefits. The complaint deserves to be dismissed.

We have gone through the pleading of the parties and documents filed on record. This is not disputed rather it is clear from the documents filed on record that the premises in question was inspected by the team of the respondent and after checking an assessment of the connected load was made and on the basis of the inspection report a show cause notice was also issued to the complainant and the person residing over there. The Seizure Memo dated 11.08.10 bearing signature of Rajiv Kumar is also on record and inspection report also bears the signature of the complainant. They have also placed on record the request of settlement submitted by the complainant. The order passed thereon under the Act by the Assessing Authority and it service through Speed-Post.  The over whelming evidence placed by the respondent and the self-admission of the complainant leaves no room for doubt that the matter pertains to Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity and as per the Apex Court the same is not triable before the Consumer Court. The allegations of the respondent have not been denied by the complainant that he was not given the benefit of 30% rebate and thereafter on the intervention of the Hon’ble Chief Minister further rebate of Rs.19,738/- was given. In these circumstances, this cannot be said that respondent was in any way deficient in providing services and any amount that has been deposited by the complainant is in excess of what was due from him. In any case the complaint before this Forum not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the Judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.

 

(POONAM MALHOTRA)                                                        (N.A.ZAIDI)

                    MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT