CASE NO. 102/2014

Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar

R/o 540/2, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007.        …….. Complainant

                VERSUS

NDPL Tata Powers Ltd. & Anr.                                       ..….Opposite Parties

04.04.2014

Present:     Sh. R.N. Dubey, Counsel for the complainant.

The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.P under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that on 28.02.2013 she has applied for a new electricity connection vide application No. 2006315812.  She is a tenant in the premises No.540/2, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.  It is alleged that the connection was not given and O.P demanded NOC from the landlord of the complainant.  It is alleged that complainant cannot be denied electricity connection merely because there is no NOC from the landlord.   On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to install the meter in the premises of the complainant, apart from compensation for harassment and cost as claimed.

2.     Argument on admission of the complaint heard.  In this case the connection has not been given by the O.P.  No demand notice has been raised by O.P nor complainant has paid any amount to O.P.  He has simply applied for a connection which has been disallowed by O.P.  Question arises whether this forum has power to direct the O.P give electricity connection to the complainant? 

3.     In this regard complainant has relied upon authorities reported as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. S.K. Enterprises II (2012) CPJ 70 Maharashtra State Commission and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Kalwati IV(2012) CPJ 411 (NC). These authorities are not attracted to the facts of the present case inasmuch as connections in these cases already exist. 

 4.    Question arises whether complainant qualifies to be ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act?  In our considered opinion a person who had only applied for electricity connection, he/she did not qualify to be ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act inasmuch as he/she had not “availed any service” against payment, therefore it cannot be said that complainant qualified to be ‘consumer’  when the present complaint had been filed.  

5.     From perusal of record, we find that complainant has asked for relief that O.P be directed to install the meter connection in the premises No.540/2, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and to pay cost and compensation as claimed.  The Consumer Forum is not vested with injunctionary powers nor at can arrogate to itself such powers to issue injunctions in prohibitory or mandatory form.  The District Consumer Forum can play and run on the turf circumscribed by section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Section 14(1) of the Act does not vest any power to grant relief in the form of mandatory and prohibitory injunctions to call upon the O.P to do or not to do any act.  If any authorities are required, Dr. Sudha Pareek Vs. Union of India & Anr.  II (1993) CPJ 240 (NC) and Union of India Vs. N. Vasudevan   I(1993) CPJ 84 (NC) can be relied upon where it has been held that consumer forums have no jurisdiction to order release of Telephone connection to a person who has applied for the same nor such a relief can be granted by it under section 14 of Consumer Protection Act.  Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission in District Manager, Telephone Vs. M/s Munni Lal  1993(I) CPJ 41 (NC). Therefore, when the power to grant relief in the form of mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is not vested in the Consumer Forum, no relief as claim by the complainant can be given.    Complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

Copy of the order be given to the complainant and the file be consigned to record room.

(BABLU LAL)               (D.R. TAMTA)              (MRS. SHAHINA)

 PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                            MEMBER