18.12.2023

SH. SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. In brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a Consumer / beneficiary being user / registered consumer  as per section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 of K No. 35300138347 installed at House No. 1498 Block B Shastri Nagar in the name of Sh. Khillan Singh with a sanctioned load of 1 KW in the year 1991.
2.  It is stated that on in the year 2011 a notice dated 12.12.2011 was received by the complainant from OP No. 1 stating that, “load being used by you on the basis of average of five highest maximum demand indicator readins recorded during the year 2010-11 as gone upto 2 KW against existing sanctioned load of 1 KW and complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 600/- and same was deposited and sanctioned load was enhanced to 2 KW. Thereafter complainant has been paying electricity bills regularly and continuously.
3. It is stated that complainant is the co-owner of the property No. 1498 Block Shastri Nagar Delhi 110052. It is further stated that in the month of June 2012 an application was moved by OP 2 to OP 1 stating that the building is demolishing and meter is required to be removed whereas building was already booked for unauthorized for illegal construction in the year 2011.  Thereafter OP No. in collusion with OP 1 removed the meter without intimating to complainant / user. It is stated that OP2 acted negligently due to malafide intentions and got removed illegally and unlawfully meter in collusion with OP 1. Hence present complaint filed seeking direction to restore the electricity of K No.  35300138347, to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/-.   
4. Notice was issued to OPs who appeared and filed detailed Written Statement. In the WS by OP1 has taken preliminary objections that complainant is not a registered consumer therefore has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The present complaint filed in the year 2016 whereas electricity connection was disconnected in the year 2012 therefore barred by limitation. It is further stated that the electricity connection was installed at B 1498 Sahstri Nagar Delhi which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Forum. It is stated that present complaint is related to primarily between complainant and OP2 as a property dispute therefore is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
5. On merits all the allegations are denied. It is stated that as per record available OP NO. 2 filed an application on 18.06.2012 to surrender the meter against electricity connection bearing CA No. 60004695999 ( K No. 35300138347) and another meter No. 35300558525 along with complaint attached is identity proof, copy of paid bills affidavits declaring he is the owner of premises No. 1498/1 supported by sale deed. It is further stated that request was processed for disconnection and meter was removed on 19.06.2002 and electricity bill finalized. It is further stated that no objection from the complainant at that time of disconnection and removal of meter was received by OP No. 1. The OP NO. 1 denied the fact that there was awareness of booking of unauthorized and illegal construction of the building in the year 2011. OP No. 1 also denied the knowledge of the fact that complainant is the co-owner of the property. OP No. 1 denied that meter was removed in collusion with OP NO. 2. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service negligence, unfair practice committed by OP No. 1 therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 
6. In the WS by OP2 has taken preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as present complaint is not filed by the registered consumer. It is stated that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as not a registered consumer of CA No. 60004695999 ( K No. 35300138347) but claimed as a user. The OP No. 2 Rajesh Goel claims to be owner of the property. It is further stated that present complaint is barred by limitation and there is a property dispute between the parties therefore same is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits all the allegations are denied. It is stated that present complaint case is a property dispute between the parties therefore liable to be dismissed.
8. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made against him in the WS of OP No. 1 and OP NO. 2 and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
9. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint and relied on the copy of election I Card Ex. CW1/1, Affidavit of Khillan Singh EX. CW1/2, Copy of electricity bill as EX CW1/3 and notice Ex. CW1/4. Complainant also filed an affidavit of one Sh. Laxman Pandey s/o Chandeshwar Pandey R/o B-1399 Shastri Nagar, who also reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.
10. OP filed evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh.Anil kumar Gautam working in the office of respondent.   
11. The complainant and OP both filed Written Arguments. 
12. We have heard Complainant in person and Sh. Harish Purohit AR of OP and perused the record.
13. The complainant admitted that CA No. 60018229736 is in the name of Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant. Therefore registered consumer is Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant. The photocopy of the electricity bills filed on the record further establishes that Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant is the registered consumer. In order to meet the objection of locus standi complainant has taken the plea that he is the Karta of the family and beneficiary therefore has locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant also reproduced the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have gone through the definition. Complainant neither hires or avail any services of OP. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP supplied electricity on the basis of application filed for connection in the name of Ms. Geeta who is the wife of the complainant and a contract also entered by Ms. Geeta therefore complainant Balkishan is not covered within the definition of the Consumer. Later on complainant attempted to plug this loope hole by filing power of attorney dated 05.04.2016 but it cannot cure the legal lacunae as complaint was filed on 22.08.2015. We are of the considered opinion that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.     It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has taken the plea he has only one cow and not running any dairy farm or selling milk however as per record he concealed the material facts that OP officials conducted the inspection and prepared a detailed report dated 09.09.2014. It is admitted by the complainant that at the time of inspection registered consumer Ms. Geeta was present. It is also not out of place to mention that the application for new connection dated June 2014 and energization report July 2015 specially mention rate category “cattle’s / dairy farm. It clearly mention that electricity connection in the name of Ms. Geeta is of the category of Cattles / Dairy Farm. These vital facts were concealed by the complainant. 
14. Therefore we do not find any deficiency of service and illegality in the impugned electricity bill challenged before us. The complaint is devoid of merit therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on18.12.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                   NIPUR CHANDNA                     RAJESH            

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER                        MEMBER