Delhi

North

CC/9/2018

PARAMJEET - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:9/2018

 

In the matter of:-

 

Sh. Paramjeet

S//o Sh. Chander Singh,

Street No.1,

Village Jharoda Majra Phase-2,

Surender Colony, Burari,

Delhi-110084.                                     …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

A Tata Power & Delh Govt. Joint Venture,

Regd. Office.

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                     …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER

24/10/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

1. Electricity Connection vide C.A. No. 60011165002 stands installed in the premises bearing at Burari, Street No.1, Village Jharoda Majra Phase-2, Delhi-110084, in the name of the complainant. The complainant have paid upto date bill against the said connection.
2. The complainant have received a Dues Intimation Letter dated 01.09.2017 intimating the dues of Rs.3,465/-. The complainant enquired about the said dues but the OP have forced the complainant to deposit the above said amount, and further threatened to disconnect the electricity supply. Having no option, the applicant deposited Rs.3,465/- to the OP.
3. On the perusal of the above said dues Intimation letter, it was noticed that the said dues is over the CA No. 60014167328, whereas the connection No. 60011165002 is in the name of the complainant and the complainant has no concern with the CA connection No.60014167328 for which the OP has forced complainant to pay the said amount under the threats of disconnection of the supply of the electricity in the premises of the complainant.
4. The complainant has intimated the said error, vide letter dated 20.12.2017 to the OP and requested to return of the amount, but the OP have not listened the voice of the poor complainant so far.
5. The complainant has visited from desk to top in the office of the OP, for the redressal of the grievances but all in vain.
6. There is a clear negligence on the part of the OP, without any fault of the complainant.
7. The OP is liable to return the above paid sum of Rs.3,465/- along with the interest, to the complainant.
8. The complainant has suffered great loss and injury, mental pain and agony, due to the negligence and illegal acts of the OP.

 

2.       The Complainant has, therefore, filed this complaint praying to pass the following orders:-

1. the OP may kindly be directed to return the sum of Rs.3,465/- to the complainant immediately.
2. the interest over the said amount, from the date of payment, may also be granted.
3. the OP may also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss and injuries pain and sufferings, mentally, physically, socially, and financially.
4. the cost of the litigation may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

 

3.       The Complainant has also filed copies of Dues intimation Letter dated 01.09.2017, bill dated 01.09.2017 of CA No.60014167328, letter dated 20.12.2017 to Chief Manager, TPDDL, Lawrence Road and bill dated 10.10.2017 of CA No.60011165002 along with the complaint.

 

4.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply following preliminary objections stating that:-

1. The present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP as far as relief against the OP is related. The Complainant had applied new connection in the premises and as per process, the dues, pending on the premises, was shown outstanding which the Complainant/Consumer paid at that time without any qualms/objections/protest. Now, after release of new connection and elapse of more than six months, Complainant has installed the issue of payment of dues. Therefore, there is no cause of action remains to file the present complaint, hence, liable to be rejected at initial stage.
2. The act of filing the present complaint is purely an afterthought as he had not objected to deposit of outstanding bill amount at the time it was asked to be deposited. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be rejected.
3. The present complaint is liable to be rejected on the sole ground that the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction in this matter. The connection against which dispute has been raised (cause of action arises) is related to Village Jharoda Majra, Delhi-110084 which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be rejected on this count as per Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as CPA).
4. The complaint is liable to be rejected as the Complainant acquiesced to the demand raised by the OP and got released the new connection in his favour and now after elapse of more than six months, the Complainant started raising the dispute. The present complaint of the Complainant is, thus, barred by Principle of Estoppel and Waiver, thus same is liable to be rejected at threshold.
5. The present complaint does not fall within the definition of 'Complaint as per Section 2(1)(c) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the services hired or availed of by the consumer does not suffer with any deficiency.
6. The consumer fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act would have jurisdiction to entertain only the complaint filed by the consumer of electricity alleging any defect or deficiency in the supply of the electricity. However, in this particular matter no deficiency or defect in supply has been contended by the Complainant therefore same does not fall under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as CPA).
7. The present complaint is not maintainable as the relief claimed does not come under the purview of Section 14 of CPA.
8. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, hence, same is liable to be dismissed in accordance with Section-26 of CPA.

 

5.       The OP has also explained the facts of the case as under:-

1. the Complainant had applied new connection in his name (Mr. Paramjeet) at Kh No. 29/1/1, 1ª Floor, Surender Colony, Street No.1, Village Jharoda Majra, Phase- 2, Delhi-110084 vide New Connection Notification No. 2015528093 on 02.08.2017. On receipt of application for new connection, same was processed and found that dues amounting to Rs. 3,465/- were outstanding on the applied premises against previous electricity connection bearing C.A. No. 60014167328 (at that time this connection was inactive and meter against this connection had already been removed); which was also registered in the name of Complainant. Being dues related to applied premises, the applicant of new connection is liable to pay dues in accordance with provisions of law. Therefore, Dues Intimation Letter dated 01.09.2017 was issued to the consumer intimating the outstanding dues on the applied premises. The Complainant without any protest/objection paid the amount of Rs. 3,465/-on 01.09.2017. After clearance of previous dues outstanding on the premises and completion of commercial formalities, the new electricity connection C.A. No. 60022330090 was released on 20.09.2017.
2. The Complainant after release of connection and installation of meter started raising the dispute with respect to payment of amount of Rs. 3,465/- and seeking refund of this amount.

 

6.       The OP has also furnished following para wise reply on merits of the case:

1. The contents of Para-1 of the complaint are matter of fact, hence, needs no response from OP.
2. The contents of Para-2 of the complaint are matter of record. The electricity connection bearing C.A. No. 60011165002 (Κ.Νο. 45505197386) is registered in the name of Mr. Paramjeet at Gali No. 1, Phase-2, Village Jharoda Majra, Delhi-110084 for sanctioned load of 1 K.W. for Domestic Light. The connection was energized on 01.09.2006. The copy of statement of account of electricity connection C.A. No. 60011165002 has been annexed with the reply and marked as Annexure-'A'.
3. The OP vehemently denies contents of Para-3 of the complaint as same are wrong and without substance. The Complainant had applied another connection (in addition to above connection referred in Para-2) in same premises mentioning address as Kh. No. 29/1/1, 1 Floor, Surender Colony, Street No.1, Village Jharoda Majra, Phase-2, Delhi-110084 vide New Connection Notification No. 2015528093 on 02.08.2017. On receipt of application for new connection same was processed and found that dues amounting to Rs. 3,465/ were outstanding on the applied premises against previous electricity connection bearing C.A. No. 60014167328 (at that time this connection was inactive and meter against this connection had already been removed); which was also registered in the name of Complainant. Being dues related to applied premises, the applicant of new connection is liable to pay dues in accordance with provisions of law. Therefore, Dues Intimation Letter dated 01.09.2017 was issued to the consumer intimating the outstanding dues on the applied premises. The Complainant without any protest/objection paid the amount of Rs. 3,465/-on 01.09.2017. After clearance of previous dues outstanding on the premises and completion of commercial formalities, the new electricity connection C.A. No. 60022330090 was released on 20.09.2017. It is categorically denied that the Complainant was forced to deposit the above said amount and any threat was given to disconnect the electricity. The demand note was issued on 01.09.2017 and on the very same day he deposited the same which clearly shows that the Complainant willingly and without any qualms paid the amount as same is related to same premises. The Complainant/Consumer was well aware of the fact of attributability of dues on the applied premises, at the time of making of payment of outstanding dues. The copy of statement of account of electricity connections C.A. No. 60014167328 and C.A. No. 60022330090 filed and marked as Annexure-'B' and Annexure-'C' respectively.
4. The contents of Para-4 are wrong and denied. It is relevant to mention here that the electricity connection C.A. No. 60014167328 (K.No. 45505238583) is related to the applied premises which was sanctioned in the name of the Complainant/Consumer and dues of this connection was payable by the consumer in order to complete the commercial formalities for new connection. All allegation of the Complainant are denied as same are wrong and without substance.
5. The contention of the Complainant in Para-5 is wrong and denied. The dues on premises are payable by the Complainant/Consumer in accordance with provisions of law, hence, the claim of the consumer for refund of same is not tenable at all. It is relevant to point out here that the Complainant paid the demand note on 01.09.2017; the connection was released on 20.09.2017 whereas the first complaint, as alleged by the consumer, was made on 20.12.2017 after elapse of three months; this clearly shows that the action on the part of the consumer is purely an afterthought.
6. The contents of Para-6 are wrong and denied.
7. The OP denies contents of Para-7 of the complaint stating that no negligence has not committed.
8. As regards Para-8, the statement of the Complainant/Consumer with respect to his family circumstances is matter of fact, hence, needs no response from the OP. However, it is denied that the OP/OP forced the Complainant to pay the dues on the premises. On the contrary, the Complainant himself paid the outstanding dues at the time of applying new connection out of his will. Since the outstanding dues pertained to the applied premises in the narne of the Complainant therefore he was required to clear the dues. The bill was intimated through Dues Intimation Letter dated 01.09.2017 against electricity connection C.A. No. 60014167328 was correct and payable by the Complainant/Consumer being related to applied premises which was in accordance with provisions of law.
9. The contents of Para-9 are wrong and denied. The sum of Rs.3,465/- was correct and payable, thus, the claim of the Complainant/Consumer for refund thereof is not tenable at all.
10. The OP denies contents of Para-10 as same is wrong and without substance. The OP has acted in accordance with provisions of law and there was no illegality in raising the justified bill; hence, the claim of the Complainant/Consumer with respect to loss, injury, mental paid, agony, negligence are not tenable at all.
11. The OP/OP has issued the Dues Intimation Letter, with respect to payment of Rs. 3,465/- towards electricity connection C.A. No. 60014167328 at the time of receipt of application for release of new connection from the Complainant/Consumer, in accordance with provisions of law which was paid by the consumer, thus, there is no claim subsists of the Complainant/Consumer for refund of said amount. The claim with regard to refund of sum of Rs.3,465/-with interest is not tenable at all. Since the OP has acted in accordance with provisions of law hence the claim with regard to compensation for loss, injuries, pain and suffering for amount of Rs. 50,000/- is also not maintainable. The Complainant is not entitled to any other and further relief in this matter. The OP most prays to dismiss the present complaint as same is devoid of merit. Therefore, the OP, most humbly prays to pass necessary directions as may deem fit in the fact and circumstances referred hereinabove.

 

7.       The OP has also filed the copies of Statement of Account of Electricity Connection CA No.60011165002 in the name of Sh. Param Jeet as user of connection, Statement of Account of Electricity Connection CA No.660014167328 in the name of Sh. Param Jeet as user of connection, and Statement of Account of Electricity Connection CA No.60022230090 in the name of Sh. Paramjeet Singh as user of connection.

 

8.       The OP has also filed an application under Section-2 (1)(c)(iii) and 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up-to-date) read with Section 151 of the CPC on the ground of maintainability of the present complaint.

 

9.       The Complainant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint. Both the parties have filed evidences by way of affidavit & participated in the argument. The OP has filed copies of the electricity bill of CA Nos.60022330090 and 60014167328 during the arguments which are taken on record.

10.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. In the representation submitted to the General Manager, TPDDL, Lawrence Road, Delhi on 20.12.2017, the complainant has stated that the CA No.60014167328 does not belong to him.
2. The Complainant has alleged in the complaint filed before this commission that he has no concern with the electric connection with the CA No.60014167328 for which the OP has forcefully recovered Rs.3465/- as dues but the Complainant has not rebutted the record filed by the OP substantiating that CA No.60014167328 belonged to the Complainant.
3. The Complainant has very cleverly repeated in the complaint that connection bearing CA no.60011165002 is installed in his premises and he has no concern with the electric connection with the CA No.60014167328 for which the OP has forcefully recovered Rs.3465/- as dues but the Complainant has not rebutted the record filed by the OP substantiating that CA No.60014167328 belonged to the Complainant.
4. The complainant has cleverly concealed in the complaint that a new electric connection with CA No.60022330090 was also got installed in his premises on 20.09.2017 and for procuring this new connection, he has paid Rs.3,465/- to the OP. This fact has been revealed by the OP in the reply to the complaint and the Complainant has again not rebutted this fact in the rejoinder or evidence which indicates that the Complainant has not come before this Commission/forum with clean hands.  

11.               In view of the above observations, there appears no confusion that the complainant has come to this Commission with unclean hands and without disclosing/ presenting the facts in its true sense and has also filed vexatious complaint against the OP.  In such cases, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naida Vs. Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 853) that one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-

"We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walk of life find the court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court, he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation."

12.               The provisions of section 26 of the CP Act, 1986 also provide dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints which mentions that “where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.

13.                 In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has come to this commission with unclean hands and has filed vexatious complaint against the OP. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the Complainant which shall be paid to the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP shall be at liberty to recover this cost by raising this cost in the  electricity bill of C.A. No. 60022330090.

14.               Further, the records filed by the OP( relating to various CA numbers pertaining to the electricity connections issued in the name of complainant),  is sufficient to substantiate that all these connections belongs to the Complainant which has created the confusion and prompted complainant to file this complaint by twisting the facts. Therefore, we feel appropriate to suggest that the management of the TPDDL may formulate a SOP for providing more than one connection in one premises in the name of one person/user so that the unscrupulous persons/users should not manipulate the loopholes in the rules for installation of multiple electric connections with one name in one premises.

15.               So far as the conduct of OP in the case is concerned, it has also been observed that the Complainant has submitted a representation to the General Manager, TPDDL on 20.12.2017 vide diary No.15367029 and the OP has not bothered to reply to the Complainant with suitable clarifications and this inaction on the part of the OP is considered as deficiency in service for which a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) is imposed upon the OP. Since the complainant has come to this commission with unclean hands and has filed vexatious complaint, he shall not be entitled for this cost. Therefore, this cost shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund (L/Aid), SBI Account No.00000010310544717, IFSC No.SBIN001817” by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and proof of payment of the same shall be filed before this commission.

16.               The complaint is disposed off accordingly. All pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

17.               Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                   ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                             DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                    Member                                                                            President      

                             DCDRC-1 (North)                                                           DCDRC-1 (North)