Delhi

North East

cc/152/2013

Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The District Manager, NDPL - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 152/13

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal C-41/Z-2, C-Block Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
	The District Manager, NDPL District Office Building Sector-3, Shakti Kiran Building Rohini, Delhi-110085.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

08.05.2013 16.09.2019 16.09.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Concise facts of the complaint sufficient for deciding the case on merits are briefly recapitulated as that complainant has been a registered consumer of OP vide CA No. 60011214305 after having paid requisite subscription to OP in this regard. Till 2009, he was receiving electricity bills in his name (March 2009 and May 2009 bills filed). However, in April 2013, complainant received a notice dated 09.04.2013 from OP for enhancement of sanctioned load from 4KW to 5KW addressed to Kishan Chand Sachdeva vide which notice a consumption security deposit of Rs. 600/- was demanded by OP on the basis of load usage during the month of October 2012, June 2012 and August 2012 averaging 5KW per month. The complainant vide reply thereto dated 23.04.2013, protested against such enhancement and bills being sent in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva despite complainant being OP’s registered consumer and having already filed application dated 22.02.2009 for name change and paid Rs. 2,400/- towards consumption deposit for permanent connection for K No. 44100121935 and therefore put OP to notice for withdrawal of demand and correction of name in bill records of OP immediately and furnishing of proof of same. However despite correspondence dated 20.02.2011, 23.04.2012 and 25.04.2013 and visits dated 20.04.2013 and 23.04.2013, OP failed to do either and continued to send wrongly raised bills under incorrect name. Therefore, complainant was compelled to take legal recourse against OP by filing the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against OP for correction and issuance of fresh bill with correct name for actual consumed electricity and withdrawal of illegal load enhancement demand letter with apology alongwith payment of Rs. 30,000/- towards negligence and deficiency of service, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of consumer demand note number 219288 dated 20.02.2009 issued by OP in favour of complainant acknowledging payment of deposit for permanent connection, copy of bills dated March 2009 and May 2009 in the name of complainant, copy of bill dated 14.03.2013 in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva, copy of notice dated 09.04.2013 by OP to the Kishan Chand Sachdeva for enhancement of sanctioned load from 4KW to 5KW alongwith copy of demand note payment receipt of Rs. 600/- security deposit issued by OP attached with the said notice and copy of reply dated 23.04.2013 by complainant to OP alongwith postal receipts and track report.

2. At admission stage, objection was raised by this Forum on the limitation aspect of the complaint as bills filed by the complainant bearing his name were pertaining to year 2009 after which he had claimed his name to have been changed arbitrarily in OP’s records as Kishan Chand Sachdeva but complaint was filed in 2013. The complainant placed on record additional documents by way of   copy of e-mail dated 26.09.2012 by OP to the complainant as acknowledgment of online request / complaint for name/category/load change vide notification No. 002003438872. The complainant also filed copy of NOC / affidavit dated 11.08.2009 issued by himself in favour of his tenant Kishan Chand Sachdeva with respect to electricity connection number K No. 44100121935 in property no. B-10/111, Sector 3 Rohini, Delhi-110085 for transfer of the said connection in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva till continuation of tenancy. The complainant filed copy of registered lease deed dated 11.08.2009 entered between himself and Kishan Chand Sachdeva valid for 22 months. The complainant also filed copy of subsequent registered lease deed dated 15.05.2011 entered between himself and Mr. Sanjay Bathwal for the next 33 months. The complainant also filed copy of bill dated 15.10.2011 issued by OP in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva (even after cessation of lease). The complaint was admitted on limitation.
3. Notice was issued to OP on 16.05.2013. OP entered appearance and filed written statement on 05.08.2013 in which it took the preliminary objection of this Forum lacking territorial jurisdiction as subject connection was installed at Rohini, Delhi and address of OP is also located at Rohini, Delhi, both outside the ambit of this Forum territorially, therefore complaint barred under Section 11 of CPA in terms of Delhi having being divided into separate Districts w.e.f. 01.03.2013. OP, while admitting that the electricity connection was in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva and not in the name of complainant, questioned the locus of the complainant for having filed the present complaint without any authority / approval from the registered consumer relying on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Hari Prasad Vs HBVNL Panchkula and therefore not entitled to any relief. As far as the two objections raised by the complainant are concerned firstly, being enhancement of load from 4KW to 5KW, OP submitted that the same was done as per the DERC order dated 01.02.2011 decided in the minutes of joint meeting held on 03.12.2010 on lines of which notice dated 09.04.2012 was sent to the complainant. The said order clearly mandated enhancement of sanctioned load on the basis of three highest maximum demand readings recorded by the consumer from April to March of any year. To the second objection of allegation of complainant of connection initially registered in his name but changed to Kishan Chand Sachdeva, OP submitted that complainant has himself given Affidavit / NOC stating that he has no objection if the connection is changed in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva who then had applied for connection change in his name by filing the said NOC with Lease Deed copy in 2009. Therefore, on the basis of NOC / Affidavit name was changed on the records. OP further urged that complainant’s falsity is apparent from alleged letter dated 23.04.2013 that no other / previous  letter (s) has been placed on record and no other correspondence apart from mere statement to the effect and visits have been made by the complainant. The OP objected to the maintainability of the complaint on limitation on grounds that the electricity connection was changed in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva in 2009 but challenged by the complainant in 2013 and submitted that the said name also was changed on the application on Kishan Chand Sachdeva in prescribed format and following due process as was followed for issuance of notice dated 09.04.2012. OP therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP has attached copy of electricity bill dated 19.06.2013 in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva, copy of application dated 08.10.2009 for name change applied by Kishan Chand Sachdeva in OP records, copy of Pan Card and NDPL Employee Card of Kishan Chand Sachdeva, copy of NOC/Affidavit dated 11.08.2009, copy of registered Lease Deed dated 07.08.2009 between complainant and Kishan Chand Sachdeva for 22 months, copy of print out of District Forums with respective bench and Police Stations marked / allotted and copy of order dated 01.02.2011 passed by DERC with minutes of meetings held with OP in DERC on 03.12.2010 alongwith copy of order dated 09.12.2010 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in appeal no. 139/2010 upholding minutes of joint meeting dated 03.12.2010.
4. Rejoinder in rebuttal to the written statement was filed by the complainant wherein he submitted that he is a consumer of OP having deposited security deposit on 20.02.2009. Kishan Chand Sachdeva was his tenant for 22 months for which period NOC was given. He was employee of OP and therefore enjoyed free electricity from OP and ever since he vacated the premises in May 2011, complainant had been requesting OP to change the name in their records but OP has been harassing him. Complainant further submitted that the said connection continues to be illegally in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva but OP is not changing it in his name. Complainant raised objection to the reference given by OP to DERC order for enhancement of sanctioned load questioning the basis for the same which as per him should be on the basis of average consumption instead of highest demand. Complainant further contended that NOC was valid only from August 2009 till May 2011 but OP failed to change the name which showed their deficiency in service.
5. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating his grievance against OP and stated that despite having used his security deposit, OP did not make necessary name change and permanently changed the same in violation of lease and NOC condition.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP through its executive in connection management group exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the written statement.
7. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reassertion of their grievance/defence. During the course of addressing oral arguments, complainant unequivocally submitted that he is limiting his prayer / grievance to non updation by OP of name change in its records in the name of complainant despite him being consumer thereof and continuing to send bills in the name of his erstwhile tenant Kishan Chand Sachdeva despite complainant having requested OP for name change duly acknowledged by OP vide e-mail dated 26.09.2012 and does not challenge the statutory provision of DERC with respect to enhancement of sanctioned load.
8. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record by both sides supported by respective pleadings.

It is not in dispute that complainant had given a written request to OP vide request no. 0910596869 dated 08.10.2009 for name change from existing registered user being complainant to applied by consumer Kishan Chand Sachdeva, his tenant with respect to premises flat no. 111, 3^rd floor Block and Pocket B/10, Sector 3 DDA MIS Flats, Rohini, Delhi-110085 taken on lease by Kishan Chand Sachdeva from complainant vide Registered Lease Deed dated 11.08.2009 valid for 22 months commencing from 07.08.2009. The complainant had executed NOC / Affidavit dated 11.08.2009 in favour of Kishan Chand Sachdeva for transfer of the electricity connection meter vide K No. 44100121935 installed in the said premises in his favour by OP till Kishan Chand Sachdeva is his tenant. From records filed by the complainant, it is also revealed that the said premises were vacated by Kishan Chand Sachdeva by early May 2011 and a subsequent lease agreement was entered into between complainant and one Mr. Sanjay Bathwal with respect to the said premises commencing from 15.05.2011 for 33 months. Despite submission of the lease deed and NOC which clearly mentioned the tenancy period and qualified the transfer / name change subject to continuation/subsistence of tenancy, OP continued to send electricity bills dated 15.10.2011, 14.03.2013, 19.06.2013 and as recently as 28.10.2017 in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva when OP had itself acknowledged vide e-mail dated 26.09.2012 from its customer care to complainant of online notification registration for request of name change vide Reference Notification No. 002003438872. Therefore, OP cannot take the defence of questioning the locus of the complainant, him being his registered consumer having paid the security deposit of Rs. 2,400/- in February 2009 and also because tenancy was intended to be a temporary time bound arrangement between complainant and Kishan Chand Sachdeva which was informed to OP as well vide documents filed by the complainant in its records. OP continued to send electricity bills in the name of Kishan Chand Sachdeva and notice for load enhancement too in his name which was replied by the complainant on 25.04.2013 demanding correction in the name of electricity bill records but OP failed to do anything in this regard. Complainant admitted that after vacation of the premises by Kishan Chand Sachdeva in May 2011 till next one year, he made several visits and follow-ups with OP for correction of name in electricity bills in its records but has no written correspondence in this regard except acknowledgement of his online complaint by OP vide e-mail dated 26.09.2012 which covers his period of limitation as well for filing the present complaint in May 2013. The complainant argued that the OP changed the name in their connection permanently contrary to the wordings of the NOC and therefore deficient in service.

9. After due appreciation of the facts of the case and scrutiny of documentary evidence placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that OP has been deficient in service to the extent of non updation / correction of name change back to the complainant’s name in its records as its registered consumer despite having full knowledge that the arrangement between complainant and Kishan Chand Sachdeva was limited to Lease Agreement which was time bound for 22 months from 07.08.2009 to 07.06.2011 and NOC / Affidavit also clearly mentioned that the transfer was applicable only till Kishan Chand Sachdeva was complainant’s tenant. It is common knowledge that Lease arrangements are temporary and OP was duty bound to reverse the name change on cessation of tenancy intimated by the complainant who was its registered consumer but OP failed to do so for which inaction, complainant was unduly harassed and till date continues to face incorrect bills in the name of his erstwhile tenant who vacated the premises more than eight years ago.
10.  We therefore, direct the OP to immediately and forthwith correct the electricity bill records in the name of the complainant with respect to K No. 44100121935 / CA No. 60011214305. We also direct OP to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards negligence and deficiency in service and harassment inclusive of litigation expenses. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 
11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12.  File be consigned to record room.
13.  Announced on 16.09.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member