DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 946/2017
D.No.__________________ Dated: _________________<
IN THE MATTER OF:
M. SIDDIQUI (ADVOCATE),
43, LAWYERS CHAMBERS, WEST WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
(THROUGH ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER)
KESHAV PURAM, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT: NDPL HOUSE, HUDSON LINE,
KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI-110009 … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 20.11.2017
Date of decision: 16.08.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 13 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that OP had installed a domestic electric meter bearing CA No. 60002676587, K.No. 31200141528 (KW2) after receiving Rs.6,100/- on 04.09.2000 and thereafter OP always issued the provisional bills (till 2006) and the same were paid without any
CC No. 946/2017 Page 1 of 7
delay. Thereafter, OP obtained meter reading on 01.05.2012 as its bill dated 04.06.2014 and in the year-2003, the complainant was appointed as Member in the District Consumer Forum (Central Delhi, ISBT Kashmiri Gate) and visited her chamber after the service hours as her Senior colleague Late Sh. Jaswant Singh, advocate & her clerk Mr. Nadeem Arshad used to sit. After sometime Mr. Nadeem informed her that there is no electricity supply in the meter. Thereafter, the complainant made several telephonic calls wrote letters, reminders, e-mail to OP Sub-Office at West Wing, Tis Hazari Courts and also personally visited to Commercial Manager, Vijay Nagar a number of times but no use and no reply of these letters was received and despite the Hon’ble High Court direction for restoration of the power but OP did not restore the power to the above said meter connection. The complainant further alleged that the complainant joined again her profession after completing 10 years District Consumer Forum Service and used to sit in her chamber without electricity which is a very essential necessity for a professional and human being. She has further made several requests for restoring the power to OP’s but no use. The complainant further alleged that the complainant filed her complaint before CGRF Forum on 25.04.2014 with all documents and an officer informed the complainant that file is untraceable and thereafter the complainant filed another
CC No. 946/2017 Page 2 of 7
application on 13.08.2015 with all documents and in response of this application OP pasted on 23.10.2015 an illegal notice dated 18.09.2014 u/s 163 (3) of Electricity Act, 2013 during the proceedings before the CGRF Forum. The complainant further alleged that OP has never served the supply code nor its clause 37 to the complainant in all these long years and no notice under this clause has ever been served to her till date and disconnected the same in spite OP has obtained the reading on 29.02.2008 & 01.05.2012 and if the chamber is closed how OP can obtain the reading and the complainant was always ready to perform her legal duties but OP has not restored the power connection and made it dormant and OP has sufficient security amount and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OP for restoration of electricity in the chamber of the complainant.
3. OP has been contesting the complaint and filed written statement thereby submitting that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before CGRF (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) constituted u/s 42 (5) of Electricity Act with same cause of action which was finally determined by that Forum. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal to that decision
CC No. 946/2017 Page 3 of 7
of CGRF which was also disposed by the Electricity Ombudsman and thus the present complaint with same cause of action which had already been determined by CGRF and Ombudsman is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that the complainant filed the complaint for restoration of electricity connection K.No. 31200141528 which was disconnected and meter removed in August-2008 and the complaint has been filed after elapse of more than 8 years hence same is barred by Limitation as per Sec.24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP further submitted that the complainant approached CGRF in the month of August-2015 with regard to restoration of electricity supply of connection K.No.31200141528. OP further submitted that the connection was energized on 04.09.2000 and the reading as on 20.11.2006 was 2815. Thereafter, the reading could not be obtained as the premises was locked and the complainant kept the premises rendered inaccessible for long period of more than 2 years and it finally led to disconnection of supply on 20.08.2008 and the meter was finally removed on 12.05.2014 and after removal of meter, the complainant started pursuing the matter for restoration of electricity supply and the supply had become dormant as per Clause-37 (iv) (Reading of Meter) and Clause-51 (Reconnection) of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007. OP further submitted that CGRF vide its final order dated
CC No. 946/2017 Page 4 of 7
07.10.2016 passed directions that bill against the connection has been revised and credit of Rs.(-) 3,433.78 has come in favour of the complainant and demand note of Rs.4,500/- is to be deposited by the consumer and after payment of the demand note, the connection to be released and no compensation is admissible. OP further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed replication and denied the submissions of OP and submitted that the Consumer Protection Act is a Benevolent legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also filed copy of letter dated 25.03.2011 to OP for restoring the electricity connection, copies of reminders dated 02.02.2014 & 17.04.2014, copy of meter removal form dated 12.05.2014, copy of proforma for complaint dated 13.08.2015, copy of notice for disconnection dated 12.02.2014, copy of letter dated 06.05.2014, copy of mail communication dated 30.11.2015 received from OP, copy of revised bill dated 01.10.2015 and copies of electricity bills dated November-2006, 29.04.2008 & 13.10.2015 (revised) showing that an amount of Rs.3,433.78 is to be adjusted in future bills.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Ms. Avneet Kaur, Customer Service Manager, (Civil Line) filed her affidavit in evidence which is
CC No. 946/2017 Page 5 of 7
as per the case of OP taken in written statement. OP has also filed copy of Interim Order dated 30.09.2015 passed by CGRF for TPDDL in C.G. No.6810/08/18/CVL and copy of order dated 01.08.2016 passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal No.737/2016 and copy of account statement as on 24.01.2018. OP also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as the OP in the light of evidence of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties and submissions of parties.It is revealed that the complainant has already availed the opportunity and challenged the order/action/failure on the part of OP by filing a complaint bearing C.G. No.6810/08/15/CVL before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for TPDDL and after hearing the complainant and AR on behalf of OP an interim order dated 30.09.2015 was passed as under:
1. The reading 2815 KWH was recorded on 20.11.2006 and connection was disconnected on 20.08.2008 at reading 2818 so bill for 3 units consumed during 21.11.2006 to 20.08.2008 alongwith fixed charges applicable be prepared and bill issued for other amount be withdrawn. The amount of security deposit available with discom be accounted for alongwith upto date interest be accounted for and bill be revised.
2. The complainant will submit the documents required to complete the commercial formalities and after submission of documents the demand note be issued and copy of demand note be submitted next date of hearing.
8. The complainant has challenged the said order by filing an appeal bearing Appeal No. 737/2016 before Electricity Ombudsman and
CC No. 946/2017 Page 6 of 7
after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 01.08.2016, the appeal was disposed off with the following observations:
“I find no substantive reasons to find fault with the CGRF’s verdict that the disconnection was in accordance with procedures, that no harassment as alleged has been caused and that no compensation is due. The demand note issued by the Discom was to be complied with about 8 months ago by 10th November 2015. The Discom may afford the Appellant another opportunity to fulfill prescribed requirements for a new connection. With this direction, the plaint of the appellant is hereby disallowed.”
9. From the above it is clear that the complainant is reagitating the same points which the complainant has already raised before appropriate authority and relief has already been given to the complainant. For the foregoing reasons we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any merits in the present complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed having no merits.
10. 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 16thday of August, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 946/2017 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
