ORDER

15.12.2023

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief the facts of the present case are that the complainant is residing at the aforesaid premises bearing No.4-B Block C, Pkt-B, MIG Flats, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 with her wife Nisha Chandra and using the electricity for domestic purposes vide its K No.45300143034Q and paying the electricity bills regularly. So the complainant is the consumer under the Protection Act time being enforce.
2. It is stated that the opposite party is supplying the electricity to the complainant against the aforesaid K No. since long back, hence the opposite party is the serviced provided of the electricity under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 time being enforce.
3. It is stated that in the month of Feb 2008, bill was for Rs.1350/- in April 2008 for Rs.1040/- and in June, 2008 was Rs.2940/- and the consumption was in Dec 2007 units 643, in feb 2008 units was 401, in April 2008 units was 374 and in June 2008 units was 897.
4. It is stated that the complainant suddenly surprised and shocked when he received the bill and found the OP raised amount of Rs.21,193.35 in the bill month of August, 2008 as adjustment without any reason illegally and unauthorized and without giving any details. It is further stated that the opposite party has sent a bill of month of August, 2008 for Rs.27,620/- including the aforesaid illegal adjustment for Rs.21,193.25.
5. It is stated that the conduct of the opposite parte is illegal, unlawful and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 Rules and Regulations there under time being enforce. It is further stated that the complainant has never used the electricity as alleged in the bill of month Aug 2008, hence this bill was sent illegally and contrary to the observations and true of the facts only for taking the illegal money from the complainant by making harassment and mental agony for his family members.
6. It is stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case that the OP is deficient in services and practicing unfair trade practices as mentioned aforesaid. So the OP is liable to pay compensation for Rs.60,000/- to complainant.
7. The complainant is seeking direction to restrain the opposite party from demanding the chares of Rs.21,193.35 arose in the bill month of August, 2008 and any other LPSC and other charges thereon, to restrain the opposite party from disconnecting the electricity supply vide K No.45300143034Q of the residential premises i.e 4-B, Pkt-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, to pay the compensation of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) for the mental and physical harassment of the complainant and his all family members, to pay cost of litigation Rs.5000/- and any other or further relief.
8. OP filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that Sh. C.B.S Chopra is the registered consumer of the OP and the present complaint was filed by Sh. Umesh Chandra without showing any documentary proof by virtue of which he has become the  owner/occupier of the premises in question. Moreover, the complainant has not disclose any relationship with the registered consumer. Hence the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and same is liable to be dismissed on this score.  Even assuming the complainant as a beneficiary/user of the said connection in her name as per DERC guidelines hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. On merit all the allegations denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that a case of DAE was booked against the said connection on 29.04.2005 and subsequently the meter was changed on 09.05.2005 as the same was declared slow by 91.60%. However, DAE case was dropped. The meter of the complainant against K No. was replaced on 09.05.2005 which was declared 91.60% slow and assessment was done for defective period from 29.10.2004 to 09.05.2005 as per DERC Regulations 2002 on the basis of percentage of slowness of the meter and bill was raised upto 09.06.2005 amounting to Rs.21,193.35/- which was debited in K No. account of the complainant which is correct and payable.
10. It is stated that the complainant is disputing the bill of August 2008, which is including the assessment demand. The meter against the said connection was earlier changed on 05.03.2004 as such assessment has been done for the defective period from 10.12.2003 to 05.03.2004 as taking base period of consumption recorded by the old meter from 10.06.2003 to 10.12.2003 and consumption recorded by the replaced meter from 05.03.2004 to 11.10.2004 as per DERC Regulations 2002 and in this way an amount of Rs.554.86/- was debited in K No. account of complainant which is correct and payable. It is further stated that the meter was again changed on 24.10.2007 with MF remark as such assessment has been done for the defective period from 11.10.2007 to 14.10.2007 as taking base period of consumption recorded by the old meter from 06.10.2006 to 11.10.2007 as per DERC Regulations.
11. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the action is legal and correct bills have been raised which are payable by complainant. It is further stated that complainant has concocted a story to avoid the payment of legitimate dues. It is stated that OP has never violated provisions of Electricity Act and natural justice. It is stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied contents of    WS and reiterated the contents of the complaint. It is stated that OP booked a false case of DAE on 24.01.2004 and electricity supply was disconnected and meter was removed by enforcement team of NDPL. The meter was restored on 05.03.2004 after payment of Rs.25,000/- on 03.03.2004, there was no electric supply for the period 24.01.2004 to 05.03.2004. It is stated that complaint may be allowed.
13. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on bill of August 2008 Ex.CW1/1, copy of bill month of April 2008 Ex.CW1/2, copy of bill of June Ex.CW1/3, photocopy of newspaper regarding fast meter of OP Ex.CW1/4, copy of dropping of DAE case booked on 29.04.2005 Ex.CW1/5 and payment of Rs.25,500/- in DT case dated 03.03.2004 Ex.CW1/6.
14. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Gupta Commercial Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
15. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as OP.
16. We have heard Sh. M.K Gill counsel for complainant and Sh. Harish Purohit AR of OP and perused the record.
17. The present complaint case filed by Umesh Chandra stating to be residing at premises bearing no. 4-B Block-C, Pocket-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The electricity bills filed on record mentioned the name of registered consumer of electricity connection K No.45300143034Q in the name of  Sh. C.B.S Chopra. It is admitted by complainant that DAE case was also registered against the abovesaid K No. on the basis of inspection dated 29.04.2005. The complainant has not filed any documentary proof to shows that what is the relation of the complainant with the premises mentioned hereinabove or Sh. C.B.S Chopra. The complainant is not a registered consumer and there is no contract with the OP therefore, complainant has no locus standi to file the present case. The impugned bill of August 2008 mentioned the current demand of Rs.7182/- and amount of Rs.21,193.35/- as (DR/CR). It is admitted case that after DAE case the meter was replaced on 09.05.2005 and same was found to be 91.60% slow. Thereafter, assessment was carried out on the basis of percentage of slowness of meter and bills were revised upto 09.06.2005 and a demand of Rs.21,193.35/- was raised. In the impugned bill of August 2008, the assessment demand of the period where the old meter was declared to be 91.60% slow assessed. The complainant has not filed any bill for the said period. The newspaper reports are filed on record which shows the news about fast electricity meter and other incidents. These are not documentary evidence and cannot be taken into consideration.
18. On the basis of above observation and discussion the complainant has no locus standi to file the present case as neither he is the owner nor registered consumer of the electricity connection. The assessment bill of Rs.21,193.35/- on the basis of assessment of the slow recording of reading by the electric meter which was replaced on 09.05.2005 is legal and payable by the complainant. Hence, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
19. 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  15.12.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                                  RAJESH   

 PRESIDENT                                                                         MEMBER