19.01.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant applied for a new domestic electric connection at the above said premises bearing request no.1011486542 on 01.09.2010 and OP1 issued a demand note bearing no.540972 of Rs.3600/- on 22.09.2010 and same was paid and payment receipt filed on record. It is stated that OP installed electric connection bearing K No.32104300503 on 08.10.2010 and protocol sheet filed on record. It is further stated that complainant regularly paying electricity bills sent by OP1.
2. It is stated that suddenly in the month of February 2011 OP1 sent electricity bill in the name of Bharat Kumar Srivastava and category was changed from DL to NL. The complainant is astonished how OP1 transferred the name of consumer and category of electricity connection without any information or notice. It is further stated that some officials of OP1 came to the complainant premises and given threat to disconnect electricity connection. In this regard complainant approached office of OP1 and filed many complaints but there is no proper response.
3. It is stated that there is deficiency and negligence in service of the OP and there is immediate threat of disconnection which causes mental agony, physical harassment and inconvenience etc. The complainant is seeking direction against OP1 not to disconnect electric connection, to rectify the name from Bharat Kumar Srivastava to Renu Bala and change the category from NL to DL, to pay Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest as compensation for harassment and mental agony and any other order which deems fit and proper.
4. OP1 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that there is no cause of action and complainant has concealded the material facts, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that there is no deficiency or defect in the supply of electricity to complainant and present complaint is sheer misuse of process of law therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is stated that the owner of premises bear the alleged disputed electricity connection was installed is in the name of Ms. Shanti Rani mother of complainant, who had given no objection in favor of complainant at the  time where the present electricity connection was sanctioned and installed. It is further stated that subsequently the owner of property Ms. Shanti Rani mother of complainant had pursuantly given fresh NOC to her son i.e Bharat Kumar Srivastava to transfer the present connection in his favor which was duly considered by OP1 and necessary name change was affected accordingly after the due completion of all necessary and required formalities. The mother of complainant herself by whom the statutory and mandatory formalities for attribute change was being duly complied and processed. It is further stated that in the present complaint complainant had again disputed the same fact and the other allied developments which was on the contrary being consented by mother being the owner of the property.
6. It is stated that complainant is a stranger to OP1 and has no locus standi to file the present complaint case as electricity connection transferred in the name of son of owner of premises Sh. Bharat Kumar Srivastava, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is no more consumer of OP1. OP1 referred the case of Hari Prasad Vs. MU.H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC). The complainant has concealded the facts that she has knowledge of all the circumstances and factual matrix pertaining to name change and category change from DL to NL therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is stated that the complainant is required to add her mother as a necessary party to the present complaint. In the present case the electricity connection is of category of commercial therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. The OP1 referred the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. FA no.84 of 2009 (NC), Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Hotel Corporation of India Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. III (2006) CPJ 409 (NC) and Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC).
8. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that a new domestic connection installed at H. No.112 A, G.F, Village Rampura Delhi vide request no.1011486542 dated 01.09.2010 supported by the documents consisting of GPA dated 03.12.1990 in favor of Smt. Shanti Rani W/o Sh. Ram Saran Srivastava, NOC of Smt. Shanti Rani for grant of new electricity connection in the name of daughter Smt. Renu Bala, copy of voter I card, copy of pan card etc. The request was duly processed and a demand note no.540972 for Rs.3600/- was served upon complainant and after payment the new connection K No.32104300503 installed on 08.10.2010.
9. It is stated that in January 2011 Sh. Bharat Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh.  Ram Saran Srivastava ( brother of complainant) applied for name change in his favor and category change from Domestic to Non domestic and completed the commercial formalities by submitting the documents, copy of GPA dated 03.12.1990 in favor of Smt. Shanti Rani, NOC of Smt. Shanti Rani for transfer of mentioned connection from the name of Smt.Renu Bala in the name of her son Sh. Bharat Kumar Srivastava, copy of voter I card and copy of pan card etc. The requisite payment also made of all the charges for transfer of name and category. It is further stated that after transfer of connection in the name of Bharat Kumar Srivastava a request was made for disconnection and removal of meter and accordingly an order was issued to zonal office. The officers from the zone went at the site but could not complete his job as the user of the connection at the site resisted and officials recorded that there is a dispute between the user and registered consumer of the connection, therefore, request  was closed.
10. It is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP1. The complainant is misusing the process of law. Therefore, she is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the present complaint.
11. OP2 Bharat Kumar Srivastava also filed WS and taken preliminary objections that complainant has filed the present case for getting wrongful relief from the Hon’ble Forum which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. It is stated that complainant got electric connection on false and fabricated documents without the consent and knowledge of the owner of the  premises. The Shanti Rani owner of the premises never issued NOC in favor of complainant. The answering OP got transferred the electric connection in his name after getting NOC from the Shanti Rani owner of the premises. It is further stated that OP2 purchased the said premises from Shanti Rani on 15.06.2011, therefore, becomes absolute owner and has full right regarding electricity connection and meter in his name.
12. On merit all the allegations are denied and the contents of preliminary objections reiterated.
13. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made in the WS of OP2 and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that OP2 has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has concealded material facts of its collusion with OP1,thereby getting change the name of consumer as well as category from DL to NL. It is stated that complainant has no knowledge that OP2 purchased the said premises from Ms. Shanti Rani on 15.06.2011 vide sell deed dated 15.06.2011 till 31.03.2017 when OP2 disclosed this fact in his reply. It is further stated that the complainant duly obtained the NOC from  her  mother Smt. Shanti Rani and rightly applied for electricity connection in her name. The staff of OP1 had clicked a photo of the complainant with the owner of premises alongwith NOC.
14. It is stated that staff of OP1 ignored all the irregularities in the name change application moved by OP2 on 03.01.2011 and even took action on his application dated 18.01.2011 for disconnection just after five days of the application for name changer and also of category change. It is stated that the electricity has been used for domestic dwelling unit and no commercial activities are carried out but OP1 changed the category to NL to DL at the sweetwill of OP2. It is stated that complainant is a registered consumer of electricity connection.
15. It is stated that complainant was helpless in stopping both OPs in their illegal acts. The OP2 had submitted NOC obtained from Shanti Rani his mother under undue influence and coercion. It is further stated that the OP2 had been debarred by his mother Smt. Shanti Rani on 14.05.2002 by means of a notice in “Rastriya Sahara” and again on 29.07.2010 by means of a public notice in Veer Arjun. It is further stated that NOC procured by OP2 on 12.01.2011 from Ms. Shanti Rani is illegal and transfer of electricity meter and category is more illegal, unlawful and fraudulent act.
16. The complainant made additional submission. It is stated that complainant has been residing on the ground floor of the premises under family settlement done in the year 2009 by her father Sh. Ram Saran Srivastava who had purchased the abovesaid property and rebuilt the same. The mother of complainant Smt. Shanti Rani given NOC for installation of an electricity connection in her name at the ground floor which is residential premises. It is further stated that after completion of all formalities the OP1 installed electricity connection on 08.10.2010 under the category DL. The complainant also owns a small part time tailoring shop on the ground floor itself and got installed electric meter having K No.32105001722 under the category NDLT in the name of her brother Updesh Kumar since 18.01.2004 and doing business alongwith Poonam wife of Updesh Kumar. Later on electricity connection K No.32105001722 was also got transferred by the OP2 in his name in the year 2012.
17. It is stated that OP 2 Bharat Kumar Srivatava, who is brother of the complainant, has been an antisocial element since he was young, and has been pressurizing/threatening his parents to transfer the aforesaid property in his name, being the eldest son; and as a result he was debarred by them in the year 2002. He was again debarred on 29.7.2010 due to his anti-family and anti-social activities. He is such a cunning person who does not hesitate a little in lodging false complaints/cases against the persons who dare to resist him, and he has even implicated police officials in false cases. A number of police cases are pending against him for his anti-social and criminal activities. He is such a bad element who does not hesitate in urinating in front of her sister so that she might vacate the premises where she has been residing since 2009 as per family settlement done by her father; and compelled by his atrocities, she had to register an FIR against him, and the police has filed charge sheet against him in this case, and the matter is pending adjudication in the court of Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, MM, Rohini Courts, New Delhi.
18. It is stated that OP2 had enticed the staff of the OP1 into his fraudulent acts which is evident from the facts that firstly, he applies for name change from the name of Renu Bala to his name on 13.1.2011, gets the aforesaid electricity connection transferred in his name, and on 18.1.2011 only after 5 days applies for the disconnection of the same. Thus, it crystal clear that he wanted to torture his sister’s family, by disconnecting the electricity supply so that they should vacate the premises, but due to timely action taken by the complainant, his move was checked, and the said meter could not be removed, the complainant is still an user of the same and has been paying the bills of the same regularly, though on commercial tariff.
19. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and  reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of demand note Ex.CW1/1, payment of receipt Ex.CW1/3, pay receipt Ex.CW1/2, copy of protocol sheet Ex.CW1/3, copy of electricity bills paid Ex.CW1/4, copy of documents filed alongwith rejoinder Ex.CW1/5 (colly), Ex.CW1/6, Ex.CW1/7, copy of electricity bill dated 12.02.2011 Ex.CW1/8 and copy of complaint Ex.CW1/9 (colly).
20. OP1TPDDL filed evidence by way of affidavit of Subhash Choubey. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP1 relied on documents i.e copy of application dated 01.09.2010 Ex.D1 and copy of application January 2011 Ex.D2.
21. OP2 filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of WS. OP2 relied on documents, copy of application dated 01.09.2010 Ex.D1 and copy of application January 2011 Ex.D2.
22. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP.
23. We have heard Sh. K.B.B Singh counsel for complainant, Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP1 and there is no assistance on behalf of OP2 and perused the record.
24. In the present case as per record there is a dispute between complainant Renu Bala and her brother OP2 Bharat Kumar Srivastav. The complainant and OP2 both are residing in the same premises. It is admitted facts on record that Smt. Shanti is the owner of the premises when complainant on 01.09.2010 applied for an electricity connection in her name as per documents filed on record. Her mother Shanti Devi gave no objection and after completion of all formalities OP1 installed an electricity connection. It is further admitted that in the month of February 2011 OP2 brother of complainant also applied for name change and category change of the electricity connection installed in the name of complainant. OP2 also filed NOC issued by Smt. Shanti mother of OP2. The documents on record filed by OP2 further establish that Shanti Devi gave him also NOC. The OP2 further claimed that he has purchased the property where electricity connection has been installed from Smt. Shanti Rani and becomes the owner. The OP2 filed on record GPA and other documents in this regard. It is admitted fact that Smt. Shanti Devi has not made a party in the present dispute. The facts and record establish that there is a property dispute between complainant and OP2. Both the parties alleged against each other that there mother Shanti Devi did not issue/or issue NOC in their respective favor or the NOC issued by her are forged and fabricated.
25. The OP1 acted on the basis of the documents submitted by complainant as well as OP2 her brother. In these facts where there is property dispute and a detailed documentary and oral evidence is required and adjudication of rights of the parties involved then consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Reliance may be placed on judgments of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66, Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkatta & Anr. Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 424 and The Chairman  and Managing Director City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R.Chandramohan (Supreme Court) CA No.7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023.
26. We are of considered opinion that in these peculiar and special circumstances present complaint before the consumer commission is not maintainable. However, in these special circumstances of the case we direct OP1 (NDPL) not to disconnect electricity supply of the complainant without following the principal of justice and due process of law. The present complaint is disposed off in these terms. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
27.  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 an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  19.01.2024.

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER