Delhi

North

RBT/CC/12/2023

NARESH KUMAR DABAS - 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.12/2023

[DCDRC-V CC No.1193/2016]

Sh. Naresh Kumar Dabas

S/o Sh. Narayan Singh

H. No.331, Barwala,

Delhi-110039.                                                 …                          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)

There are two applications pending for adjudication. The first application was filed on 03.11.2017 by which the Complainant has sought appointment of the Local Commissioner to conduct the inspection of area for taking the precautions taken by the OP. The next application was filed on 03.08.2019 seeking permission to appoint technical person of National Testing Laboratory to inspect the locality of the Complainant where the alleged incident of voltage fluctuation occurred on 17.08.2016. By way of both these applications the Complainant has sought inspection of the area by different agencies and the prayers in both these applications are similar. Hence, by way of this order we would be disposing of both these applications together.

At the onset we also record that on the last date of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has stated that in the second application the name of the testing agency has been indicated as a suggestion and this Commission may direct the inspection by any other testing agency.

The Opposite Party has already filed the replies of these applications on 22.12.2017 and 15.11.2019 respectively and has opposed the said applications. We have also heard the arguments of the parties on these applications.

Briefly stated, the Complainant alleges that on 17.08.2016 that because of possible Voltage Surge, there was a blast in the afternoon at the Electricity pole no. HT-2/1/3, as a result of which there was no light in various houses for a very long time. It is also stated that because of the said alleged blast several electric equipment and electric wiring of the house of the Complainant was severely damaged. In the reply the Opposite Party has stated that on the said dated there was outage of power because of fact that HT fuse at the pole 516/2/1/3 was blown which was subsequently repaired. The Opposite Party has also stated that there was no power surge on the said date.

As the alleged power surge took place on the year 2016 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 the applications. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.

It has also been stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant herein is not a subscriber of the electricity connection and he is a relative of one Mr. Ray Singh, in whose name the connection still subsist. This fact has not been denied by the Complainant in the rejoinder. Complainant has conceded that the electricity connection is still in the name of Mr. Ray Singh who has since expired way back in the year 1982. The Complainant herein is said to be brother of the said original subscriber of the connection.

We have perused the documents and also seen the records. Primarily we are of the opinion that the Complainant herein has not been able to establish that he is a consumer qua OP. It is indeed the fact that the said electricity connection is in the name of Sh. Ray Singh son of Sh. Narayan Singh who has since expired on 25.09.1982. The death certificate, as enclosed by the Complainant, indicates that the said death was registered 18.11.1982 and at the time of death of Sh. Ray Singh was married. Since 1982 till the date of filing of this complaint and even today the Complainant herein has not taken any steps to get the electricity connection transferred in his name. He has also not placed on record the documents to indicate that he is in possession of the said premises. Merely writing letters to different authorities does not established the fact that the Complainant is in possession of the said premises. Further the law is very clear after the death of any person, all the rights and interest of such deceased person, are transferred to his/ her legal heirs. There is no document to indicate that the Complainant herein is the only legal heir of the said Sh. Ray Singh as he has not brought any other legal heirs on record while filing this complaint.

Prima-facie, while relying on the death certificate, at least the wife of the deceased is also the legal heir; assuming the fact that said Sh. Ray Singh has expired without having any children of his own. The legal heir certificate has also not been placed on record and the Complainant has also not been able to established that the Complainant herein is in exclusive possession of the said premises where the electricity connection still substitution in the name of Sh. Ray Singh.

The definition of the “complainant” as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (this complaint was originally filed under the CPA, 1986 in the year 2016), includes the legal heir or the representative of the deceased consumer. In the case in hand there is no document to suggest that the Complainant herein is either the legal heir or the sole representative of the deceased Late Sh. Ray Singh. Hence, prima-facie, in our opinion the Complainant herein has not yet been able to establish that he is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this Commission cannot entertain the complaint as the Complainant herein has failed the test of being a “consumer” within the meaning of CPA, 1986.

Therefore, we are not only dismissing the applications, but also dismissing this complaint on the ground that the Complainant herein is not a consumer qua electricity connection which is subject matter of this complaint. The complaint and all pending applications 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