DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.479/2008

M/s Naresh Kumar Gupta & Co (Pvt.) Ltd.

C-320 Vivek Vihar,

Delhi-110095                                                              ……Complainant

Versus

Chairperson

New Delhi Municipal Council

Palika Kendra

Parliament Street,

New Delhi                                                                    …Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 01.08.08                                                            Date of Order        : 30.12.15

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.09.2005, the Complainant Company had taken a Temporary Electric Connection No. KT 15281 from OP.  They deposited a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as security deposit vide receipt dated 06.07.2005. Since inception the meter was defective which was replaced by OP on 24.08.2007. Complainant sent a letter dated 08.10.2007 to the OP for removal of the meter and disconnection of the supply as the requirement of the electricity was over. During this period no bill was issued to the Complainant and after disconnection a bill for Rs.1,87,866.00 was issued on provisional basis. After representation, the OP revised the bill on average basis considering total electricity consumption as 11389 units instead of 20500 charged earlier on provisional basis. A revised bill for Rs.1,26,476.00 was issued which contained bill for the reading as well as penalty for late payment surcharge of Rs.47,547.00. They sent a letter dated 24.06.2008 to the OP to rectify the bill  by removing late penalty charges and giving credit adjustment of Rs.10,000 but the same was refused by the OP vide its letter dated 11.07.2008.  Complainant has prayed as under:

1. Direct the OP to rectify the bill by removing late payment surcharge of Rs.47,547.00.
2. Direct the OP to give the credit adjustment of Rs.10,000/- deposited as security,
3. Direct the OP to issue a fresh bill
4. Direct the OP to pay a  sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant
5. Direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

OP in the written statement has interalia stated that the electricity connection was provided to the Complainant on 06.07.2005 and not on 15.09.2005. A temporary electric connection No. kt15281 (power commercial) was given to the Complainant subject to payment of Rs.10000.00 as security amount. The meter was defective during the period 15.09.15 to 23.08.2007. The defective meter was replaced on 24.08.2007 and during the said period the Complainant was charged on the provisional basis. The electricity connection was removed on the request of the Complainant and necessary adjustment was given as per their own  admission in the complaint after finalizing the assessment of consumption during the period when the meter remained defective. A bill for Rs.126472.79 was issued which contained energy charges amounting to Rs.91813.58 and surcharge amounting to Rs.34659.21. The total amount outstanding against the Complainant was Rs.126472.79 as on 26.05.2008.  Regarding adjustment of security deposit, the Complainant has already been informed that the same cannot be adjusted in the current bill as it is always refunded after the clearance of the outstanding amount. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has not filed replication.

Affidavit of Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the Complainant while affidavit of Sh. S. Sudhakar Rao, Director (Coml) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had applied for Temporary Electric Connection No. kt15281 (power commercial) subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as security amount. The meter was defective during the period 15.09.05 to 23.08.2007 and the defective meter was replaced by the OP on 24.08.07. During the said period the OP had charged on the provisional basis. The Complainant on 10.10.07 requested the OP for removal of the meter and the OP disconnected the supply on 26.11.07. The OP after necessary adjustment submitted a bill of Rs.126472.79 which contained energy charges amounting to Rs.91813.58 and surcharge amounting to Rs.34659.21. Thus, the total amount outstanding against the Complainant was Rs.126472.79 as on 26.05.2008.

Complainant had applied for temporary connection for commercial purpose.  Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant cannot plead that the OP committed deficiency in service or is guilty of unfair trade practice.

In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  30.12.15.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                             (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

30.12.2015

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.  Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                            (N.K. GOEL)    MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT