Delhi

North

RBT/CC/162/2022

MANGE RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

TPDDL - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2023

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

 

RBT Consumer Complaint No.13/2023

[DCDRC-V CC No. 712/2018]

Sh. Kuldeep

S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand

H. No.360 A, Barwala,

Delhi-110042                                                  …                          Complainant

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

 

RBT Consumer Complaint No.162/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No. 711/2018]

Sh. Mange Ram

S/o Sh. Jage Ram

Village and post office Barwala,

Delhi-110042                                                  …                          Complainant

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

 

RBT Consumer Complaint No.146/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No. 716/2018]

Sh. Mool Chand Bhardwaj

Sh. Jai Ram Bhardwaj

Village and post office Barwala,

Delhi-110042                                                  …                          Complainant

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

 

a

 

RBT Consumer Complaint No.165/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No. 714/2018]

Sh. Bhana Ram

Sh. Kundan Lal

Village and post office Barwala,

Delhi-110042                                                  …                          Complainant

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

 

 RBT Consumer Complaint No.15/2023

[DCDRC-V CC No. 715/2018]

Sh. Layak Ram

Sh. Ram Swaroop

Village and post office Barwala,

Delhi-110042                                                  …                          Complainant

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

 

RBT Consumer Complaint No.169/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No. 713/2018]

Sh. Naresh Kumar

Sh. Liak Ram

Village and post office Barwala,

Delhi-110042.                                                 …                          Complainant

 

Vs.

TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Through its Commercial Manager,

NDPL House, Hudson Lines,

Kingsway Camp,

Delhi-110009.                                                 …                          Opposite Party

         

29.11.2023

ORDER

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

In all these complaint, identical applications for identical relief were filed. Even the facts of the all these complaint are more or less identical in nature.

In all these complaints, the Complainants have alleged that on 06.04.2018 there was a case of High Voltage Surge in the locality because of which the electrical appliances and electrical wiring in the premises of the Complainants were severely damages. Subsequently, during the pendency of these complaints the Complainants filed applications on 15.11.2019 seeking a direction for appointment of a technical person to inspect the locality of the Complainants. The reply of the OP was filed on 22.10.2021, who has opposed the applications. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Advocates and have also gone through the pleadings and documents on record.

As the alleged power surge took place on the year 2018 and substantial time has passed, conducing any survey and inspection will not be fruitful. Further, while for proving the case, the Complainant is required to bring the evidences in support of his claims and the Commission cannot allow fishing expedition by the Complainant by facilitating collection of evidence. Accordingly, we are not inclined to allow these applications. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.

While going through the case files, we have also noticed certain discrepancies and omissions on part of the Complainants. It is alleged in all these complaints that on 06.04.2018 there was a case of electrical surge which caused damaged to the electrical appliances and electrical wirings in the premises of the Complainants. It is also alleged that soon after the electrical surge, the complaint was lodged with the OP and one Mr. Krishan Kumar ALM (Asst. Line Man) and another Sh. Krishan Kumar, LM (Line Man) visited the area and have inspected the some houses in the locality. But the report of the ALM and LM does not identify the respective houses of the Complainants. Respective losses have also not been recorded in the said report.

In the complaint it is also been alleged that the complaint regarding power outage on 06.04.2018 was made by one Mr. Pawan Kumar but the said Sh. Pawan Kumar has not filed any consumer complaint regarding the said incident. Interestingly, in four out of six consumer complaints, the details of the respective consumers including the CA Number which is unique identification number of the electricity consumer have not been provided by the respective Complainants. It is only in the case of Mool Chand Bhardwaj Vs TPDDL (RBT CC No.146/2022) the CA No. was provided but no bill was attached. In case of Kuldeep Vs. TPDDL (RBT CC No.13/2023) in the body of the complaint the CA number of Mr. Moolchand was mentioned.

After the replies were filed by the OP, in the respective rejoinders the Complainants have given their respective CA numbers, but have failed to file the copy of the bills indicating their names and their CA numbers. It is also a fact that for the alleged electricity surge of 06.04.2018 none of these Complainants have lodged any complaint with the OP. The complaint was lodged by one Mr. Pawan Kumar but the said Mr. Pawan Kumar is not the Complainant in the set of complaints pending before this Commission.

Further it is also noted that all the communications to the authorities prior to electricity surge on 06.04.2018 were made primarily by Mr. Naresh Kumar Dabas whose complaint, we have already dismissed by a separate order. It appears that Mr. Naresh Kumar Dabas have made these Complainants file identical complaints in order to get the sympathetic view of this Commission. However, in absence of any proof to establish the facts that all these Complainants are actual users of the electricity connection, it is very difficult for us to understand that whether the Complainants herein are consumers or not.

It is only in case of Mr. Moolchand that the CA number has given but the copy of the bill has not been filed in his case also there is no complaint made by the Complainant namely Mr. Moolchand to the Opposite Party regarding outage and electrical surge. Even the report filed by Mr. Krishan Kumar, ALM and Mr. Krishan Kumar, LM; consumers whose houses alleged loss of appliances and equipment have taken place, have not been identified. Only the pole number is identified which also cannot be assumed to have supplied the electricity connection to all these Complainants in absence of any specific proof to that effect. None of the Complainants have filed respective copy of their bills, because of which we cannot ascertain that all these electricity connections are with respect to the same pole which was subject matter of the inspection report of Mr. Krishan Kumar, ALM and Mr. Krishan Kumar, LM.

In support of their respective losses, the Complainants have filed bills for purchase of electric appliances and wiring essentials. We have also noted that there is a discrepancy in these bills. All these bills were issued by one M/s Balwan Electricals & Motor Winding but the dates of the bills are not in proper order. This can be very well understood by the following chart:

Name of the Complainants and Case No.	Bill Nos.	Bill date	Amount
Kuldeep and RBT/CC No.13/2023	009	08.04.2018	Rs.2,710/-
Mange Ram and RBT/CC No.162/2022	007	14.04.2018	Rs.860/-
Moolchand and RBT/CC No.146/2022	010	19.04.2018	Rs.1,470/-
Bhana Ram and RBT/CC No.165/2022	015	20.04.2018	Rs.2,560/-
Layak Ram and RBT/CC No.15/2023	016	24.04.2018	Rs.1,800/-
Naresh Kumar and RBT/CC No.169/2022	013	02.05.2018	Rs.980/-

Bill no. 009 was issued on 08.04.2018, but the bill no. 007 was issued on 14.04.2028. Further, the alleged loss of appliances took place on 06.04.2018, but the purchases were made towards latter half of the month of April 2018 and in beginning of the month of May 2018. These raise serious doubt on correctness of these bills.

Hence, in absence of any copy of electric bills to suggest that the Complainants herein are actual consumers affected by the alleged power surge, and also in absence of any report to suggest identifying actual loss of the respective Complainants, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint any further. Accordingly, all these complaints are dismissed.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the Complainant as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

Ordered accordingly.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member