Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/514

LaliDevi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kaushalya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Business Manager, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

                                                                                                             Date of institution:03.07.2008

Complaint Case. No.514/08                                                               Date of order: 29.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

LaliDevi, GPA Holder of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, A-361 G/F, ManglaPuri, Phase-II, Palam Colony-110045                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Complainant

VERSUS

Business Manager, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., C-2 D,Dabri Mod Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                               Opposite party-1

Commercial Manager, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., C-2 D,Dabri Mod Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                        Opposite Party-2

                                                                                                                                   

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

               This complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act herein after in short referred as the act is filed  byLali Devi as  General Power of Attorney of Smt. Kaushalya Devi named aboveherein after referred as the complainant for directions to Business Manager BSESRajdhani Power Ltd. and another herein after in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite partiesto correct past excess amount paid by her to the opposite parties on account of misuse charges and pay a  sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation towards mental agony andharassment and Rs.16,000/- as legal expenses.

               The Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the complaint as stated are that the complainant is an Electricity consumer of the opposite parties as per Electricity Connection-New K.No.2660/W/4620982 and CRN No. 2660031046 and Meter No. 23478478installed at her premises bearing no. A-361, Ground floor, ManglaPuri, Phase-2,palam colony, New Delhi.

               That the complainant had been complaining the opposite parties for deletionof misuse charges inadvertentlyimposed in her electric bill since 2002 on account of fixing shutter for her three wheeler garagepresuming a commercial activity.  The complainant went to Rajasthan to solemnizemarriage of her daughter and the opposite parties removed the electric meter from her premises. When the complainant returned, she was shocked to see that there wasno electric meter in her premises and thought that electric meter was stolen.

               That before she lodged complaint of theft of the electric meter a raiding party of the opposite parties framed her in a case of electricity theft. The complainant has been depositing adhockamount as and when she visited office of the opposite parties to avoid disconnection.

That recentlyGovernment announced a scheme for settlement of such cases on payment of 40% of the access amount. The complainant paid Rs.24,000/- in March 2007, Rs.1,300 in june 2007, Rs.2,000/- in July2007, Rs.4,000/- in October 2007 and Rs.5,000/- in May 2008. The complainant in this way made payment of more than 40% of the amount but did not get any relief from the opposite parties. The complainant had been regularly paying the Electricity consumption charges bills. But the opposite parties are deficient in service on account of not correcting her misuse charges, which has caused illegal removal of the Electricity Meter without notice to the complaint. Therefore, the opposite parties are negligenton account of ignoring relevant provisions of law. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to correct past access amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties on account of misuse charges and pay sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation towards mental agony andharassment and Rs.16,000/- as legal expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. They appeared and filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the matter has been settled by Harinarayan husband of the complainant on 01.03.2008 before the BijiliVivadSamadhanSamitee and agreed to pay the short charges of misuse for six months period prior to 23.11.2006. But the complainant has concealed this fact just to mislead this forum and once the matter is settled the complaint is not maintainable. The bill under challenge is prior to 2002. Hence the complaint is beyond limitation.So liable to be dismissed.

However on merits asserted that the complainant was misusing the sectioned domestic connection for commercial purposes, therefore, misuse charges were leviedon the complainant.She paid the misuse charges up to January 2004 without protest.But in advertently misuse charges could not be charged from the billing month of January 2004 to November2006.When the mistake was detected on 23.11.2006 the misuse charges of the said period amounting to Rs.91804.42/- as debitedin account of the complainant in the billing month of January 2007. On 01.03.2008 husband of the complainant settled the dispute before the BijiliVivadSamadhanSamitee. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant filed the present complaint after closing the commercial activities just to take advantage of her own wrongs.There is no scheme for settlement of misuse cases on payment of 40% of the misuse charges. All other allegations of the complaint aredenied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties controverting stand of the opposite parties and reiterating her stand.

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, she filed affidavit dated 20.03.2009 narrating facts of the complaint and relied upon Annexure-1 electricity charges bill for the month of May 2008, Annuxure-2 demand note dated 19.03.2007 and Annuxure-3 electricity charges bill for the month of November 2006.

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence,they tendered in evidence affidavit of Pramod Mishra narrating facts of the reply. They also relied upon copy of settlement dated 01.03.2008ofelectricity charges bill, copies of assessment bill for theft of electricity dated 15.02.2007 and 15.03.2007, copies of amended electricity bills dated 26.04.2008,26.02.2008, 19.10.2007, 04.04.2007 and19.03.2007.

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

Admittedly the complainant is a domestic electricity consumer of the opposite parties. She was caught misusing for domestic electricity for commercial purposes in 2002. Therefore, penalty was imposed on the complainant. The case of the complainant is that she has paid more than 40% of the unauthorized use of electricity charges and there is a scheme of the opposite parties to write off the unauthorized use of electricity charges on payment of 40% charges. The complainant is to show that she has paid more than 40% of the unauthorized electricity charges. But except one receipt of payment of Rs.5,000/- only, there is nothing on the record to show that she has paid more than 40% of the unauthorized use of electricity charges and there is any scheme of the opposite parties to write off unauthorized use of electricity charges on payment of 40% of the electricity charges. Therefore, the complainant failed to show that she is entitled for settlement of unauthorized use of electricity charges.

Secondly,the dispute between the parties is regarding payment of unauthorized use of electricity charges for the year 2002. The complainant filed the present complaint on 03.07.2008. Whereas according to the provisions of section24-A of the Act the complaint can be filed within two years from cause of action but the complaint is filed after lapse a period of more than 6 years, therefore, the complaint is also barred by limitation.

Thirdly, the case of the opposite parties is that the matter was settled by BijiliVivadSamadhanSamiteeand once the matter is settled the complaint is not maintainable. It is settled principal of law that once the matter is settled/compromised the complaint is not maintainable. The settlement/compromise can be challenged only on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion. But the complainant has not challenged the settlement taken place before the BijiliVivadSamadhanSamitee on any of the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion. Therefore, the complaint is also not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer under the Act.

In light of above discussion and observations there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on :29.04.2017

• 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