Delhi

North West

CC/1189/2014

ANITA SINGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TPDDL - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM : NORTH-WEST

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

      CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 1189/2014

D.No.______­­____________                                   Dated: _________________

< 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. ANITA SINGHAL W/o SH. RAJEEV SINGHAL,

R/o 184, KHASRA No. 21/1, GF,

BLOCK-A, STREET No. 3, KAMALPUR MAZRA,

HARIT VIHAR, DELHI-110084.                              … COMPLAINANT

 

 

              Versus

 

TATA POWER DDL LTD.,

(THROUGH ITS DISTT. MANAGER),

DISTRICT SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI-110088.                                                             … OPPOSITE PARTY

                                         

                                                  

 

CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

         

                                                            Date of Institution: 19.09.2014

                                                                    Date of decision: 28.07.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant applied for electric connection and firstly the construction meter was sanctioned vide CA No. 60014556165 for 4

CC No. 1189/2014                                                                         Page 1 of 6

          KVA load and was installed on pole No.414-4/2 at aforesaid premises. Thereafter completion of house the complainant applied for permanent connection and got the documents verified and thereafter OP issued demand note no. CA 60018039051 dated 02.06.2014 for Rs.4,200/- and the said amount was deposited vide receipt no. 3113/3113171743 on 02.06.2014. The complainant is paying temporary rates for consumption of electricity despite being a domestic consumer without no fault and since June-2014, the complainant is taking the rounds to the office of OP but of no avail.

 2.      On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OP to install permanent electric connection, re-imbursement of difference of rates of electric consumption charges from temporary to permanent from the date of deposit of demand note i.e. 02.06.2014 till installation of domestic meter. The complainant has also sought damages for mental agony and physical suffering of the complainant assessed at Rs.50,000/- and has also sought cost of litigation.

3.    OP has been contesting the case of the complaint and filed written statement thereby submitting that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is a sheer misuse of process of law. OP however, admitted that the complainant applied for fresh electric connection for load of 2 KW at the premises but has denied any deficiency in service on its part. OP also admitted that the

CC No. 1189/2014                                                                    Page 2 of 6

          complainant is also a registered consumer with respect to long temporary connection (domestic tariff) with 4 KW sanctioned load vide C.A. No. 60014556165 at the premises. OP also admitted that demand note for Rs.4,200/- was paid by the complainant towards installation of new electric connection. OP however submitted that the concerned officials of the OP at the time of execution/installation of domestic connection/meter observed that the existing transformer is approx. 630 KV which needs to be augmented as the said transformer was almost loaded to 100% which causes voltage drop, load shedding and other technical consequences. The RWA of the area has refused and protested for installation of high voltage transformer and has not provided space required for installation of the transformer and therefore new connection could not be installed. OP accordingly submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant did not file any rejoinder to the written statement of the OP.

5.      In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed copy of demand note dated 30.05.2014 and copy of payment of Rs.4,200/- receipt dated 02.06.2014, copy of letter dated 11.07.2014 sent by Ram Lakhan, General Secretary of RWA to the OP, copy of application dated 23.01.2015 sent by the

CC No. 1189/2014                                                                         Page 3 of 6

         complainant to the OP for removal of temporary meter of C.A. No.60014556165, copy of electricity bill dated 08.04.2016, copy of power of attorney executed by complainant in favour of her husband.

6.      On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. Arun Sharma, Customer Service Manager filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per the case of OP taken in written statement and also filed written submissions.

7.     This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as the OP in the light of evidence of both the parties, documents placed on record by the parties and submissions of both the parties. The OP has also filed copy of order dated 11.04.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi entitled Raj Kumar Tyagi & ANR. Vs TATA Power Delhi Distributors Ltd.

8.      During arguments, complainant submitted that OP has sanctioned and installed new electric meters in the name of other consumers who have applied subsequently to the complainant and has placed on record copies of documents in favour of Ms. Triveni, Ms. Kamla and Sh. Munna Lal Sharma showing energisation date as 24.07.2014, 14.10.2014 & 11.07.2014. The OP has not disputed these facts but has taken a stand that the area in which these meters were installed is a different area and for installation of a meter various technical aspects are to be considered.

CC No. 1189/2014                                                                         Page 4 of 6

9.      After due consideration of the cases of the both the parties, we are of opinion that there is no genuiness in the defence of OP. On the one hand OP has enhanced the load from 1.0 KW to 4.0 KW with respect to the temporary connection and on the other hand OP is taking a defence of shortage of load on the transformer. All these aspects are to be considered by the OP before generation and issuance of demand note. Once the demand has been issued by the OP, we are of opinion that OP cannot refuse installation of electricity meter on technical aspects. Moreover, OP has installed new electric meters in the name of other persons in the same locality. It is not the defence of the OP that the complainant has refused to pay additional charges in respect of installation of poles etc. Thus we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in the delay in installation of new electric connection which has been energized on 20.01.2015. Thus OP is held guilty of deficiency in service.

10.    Accordingly, OP is directed as under:

1.  
2.  

11.  The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP

CC No. 1189/2014                                                                         Page 5 of 6

         shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

12.    Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 28^th July, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                           USHA KHANNA                      M.K. GUPTA

  (MEMBER)                                  (MEMBER)                       (PRESIDENT)