Delhi

StateCommission

A/08/732

BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

RATTAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Dates of Arguments: 07.02.18 

                                                                    Date of Decision:      15.02.18 

First Appeal  No.732/2008

In the matter of:

 

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

Having Registered Office at

Shakti Kiran Building

Karkardooma

Delhi- 110 032.                                                                                             ……Appellant

                                                                                   

                                                          Versus

 

Rattan Singh

26/181, C, Patel Nagar(West)

New Delhi    

Proprietor M/s Technofabs                                                                     ….Respondent                                           

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

                                                                                JUDGEMENT

            Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.05.08 passed by CDRF III OP has filed present appeal.  Impugned order recites that case of the complainant/respondent herein was that he had two connections in the name of his firm M/s Technofabs at premises No. 26/181, C West Patel Nagar one for power and other for light.  On 06.02.96 in case No. 62/96 Bijli Adalat ordered Delhi Vidyut Board to submit compliance report within three days, as a result thereof supply was re-connected on 02.03.96 under new connection.  Original meter was replaced in 15.05.98.  The replaced meter showed consumption of 3263 unit for one year from 15.05.98 to 15.05.99 i.e. average of 271.91 units per month.  The respondent vide letter dated 25.04.2000 made a request to the appellant to consider the whole period as defective period and assess consumption charges on the basis of one year consumption pattern of old meter and give credit for 2923 units.  He also requested for reduction of sanctioned loan  to 50% and for rectification of bills.  He applied for load reduction in view of changes made in power tariff structure for small industrial consumers.  It was also decided in the said policy that the application for load reduction should be decided within 30 days. If decision is not conveyed within 45 days request of consumer would be deemed to have been accepted. By end of September, 1997 load reduction was neither recorded in the meter book nor mentioned in bills for three long years.  The same resulted in financial loss of benefits for 8 long years till filing of the complaint in 2005.  Electricity was disconnected on 04.08.2000 from the pole due to non-payment of wrong bills.

2.        The officials of DVB slapped the respondent with computerized bill till December, 2000 indicating 10 times inflated load of 47.98 KW. Hence complaint was filed for immediate restoration of electricity for power and light both.  Correcting bills on account of load reduction since 12.08.97, crediting Rs. 29,303/- charged in excess by the appellant against fast defective meter, adjustment of all payments of Rs.62,959/- from 29.10.97 to 25.08.2000.  Compensation of Rs. 19,02,577/- for loss of rental of 225 sq. yds.  partly built up space since 2000 and loss of dignity. Serious punishment to those indulging in mischievous, fraudulent activities with senior citizen for no fault of him was also prayed. 

3.        Appellant filed WS stating that total sanctioned load of 8.46 KW was reduced to 4.798 KW w.e.f. 26.07.2000. Appellant admitted mistake of wrong load as 47.98 KW due to which respondent got inflated bill of Rs.12,36,140/-  till August 03.  The bill was revised w.e.f. 03.02.96 till 20.10.2000 when the supply was disconnected under orders of Commissioner of Industries. Revised bill for Rs. 1,02,246.44/- was generated.  The appellant clarified that  revised bill by taking into account minimum guaranteed fastness of the meter has no contribution in the bill.

4.        Respondent filed rejoinder.  Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit.

5.        After going through the material on record District Forum found that since defective meter was replaced on 15.05.98 assessment bill from 03.02.96 to 15.05.98 should have been made. It also found that appellant failed to explain why it took three years to approve load reduction.   Due to such lapse on the part of appellant the respondent could not be made to suffer for long period.  The respondent had paid Rs. 62,959/- upto 25.08.2000 but appellant showed payment of Rs. 32,826/- only.  Non-restoration of supply when all dues were paid amounted to negligence.  Bill of Rs. 12,36,140/- was revised to Rs.1,02,246.44 on 28.07.05. The District Forum also found that appellant committed another mistake by charging both electricity charges for consumption as well as adding minimum guaranteed charges from 31.03.97 to 20.10.2000. The reason being that minimum guaranteed charges can be levied only when consumer does not consume electricity to the extent committed by him against load sanctioned. There was no minimum guarantee applicable when the connection was given. Relying upon decision of this Commission in CC No. 8/08 titled as Raj Budhwar vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. in which it was held that in view of excesses of BSES, compensation was payable by it. Hence the complaint was allowed. The appellant was directed to restore electricity, to issue revised bill on 03.02.96 to 04.08.2000 taking into account consumption of meter from 03.02.96 to 14.02.98 as defective period, average monthly consumption arrived on the basis of consumption recorded by second meter for the period 15.05.98 to 15.05.99 and fast running of the second meter by 8.15%. Appellant was directed to reduce the consumption of second meter by 8.5%, considering load reduction effective from 12.08.97 instead of 26.07.2000, account for payment of Rs. 62,959/-, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards damages, harassment and suffering for 8 years were directed to be paid, Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid for compensation.

6.        In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that District Forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as respondent’s connection was admittedly industrial connection.  District Forum erred in directing restoration of electricity because the same was disconnected on the directions of the Jt. Director of Industries Relocation in compliance with directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in WP  (Civil) 4677 of 1985  titled as M.C.Mehta  vs. Union of India.

7.        Respondent filed a reply stating that the appeal is not signed and verified by competent person.  He tried to support the order.  He did no better than denying the averments made in appeal.

8.        We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments advanced by counsel for appellant.  None turned up from the side of respondent to address arguments.

9.        The counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of National Commission in  Hotel Corp of India Ltd. vs. Delhi Vidyut Board III (2006 ) CPJ 409, in which it was held that if electric line was utilized for commercial purpose, complaint under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.  Similar view has been taken by National Commission in FA No. 84 of 2009 titled BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. M/s Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.08.09.

10.      Undisputedly connection in the present case was in the name of firm of respondent.  The same was commercial. This objection was not dealt by the district forum at all.

11.      Moreover in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Anis Ahmed 2013 (8) SCC 491 bill based upon assessment u/s 126 Electricity Act is not adjudicable under Consumer Protection Act.

12.      For the foregoing reasons the impugned order cannot be sustained.  Appeal is accepted.  Impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER(JUDICIAL)