Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/158/2022

SATYAWATI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TPDDL - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.158/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Satyawati Devi, W/o Lt. Sh. Braham Prakash, R/o Village Rani Khera, Delhi 110081	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., Through its C.E.O N.D.P.L House, Hudson Lines Kingsway Camp, Delhi   Shri Ravi Zonal Officer Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., Karala Delhi-110081	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

23.01.2018 18.04.2023 26.05.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is a registered consumer of electricity having electricity connection C.A No. 60008994406 which is installed at residential premises of the Complainant at village Rani Khera, Delhi and the Complainant is paying the electricity bill regularly. On 04.06.2017, it came to the notice of the Complainant that there was no electricity supply at the premises and a complaint was made at the office of Opposite Party no. 1 in respect of no electricity supply. After about an hour two persons from the department of Opposite Parties came to the premises and after inspecting the connection from the pole box, the Complainant was informed that the connection had been disconnected and they could not restored the same. The Complainant again contacted the complaint office to enquire about the status of the electricity connection but no satisfactory reply was given. After some time a telephonic call was made by Opposite Party No. 2 and used highly abusive language and stated that the electricity connection should not be restored. On 05.06.2017, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties for restoration of electricity connection within 24 hours but the electricity connection had not be restored till date. The complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite parties to pass orders for immediate restoration of electricity of the Complainant and further directed the Opposite Parties to pay damaged to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-  and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that an electricity connection bearing C.A No. 60008994406 registered in the name of Ms. Satya Wati Devi at Village Rani Khera, Delhi for load of 1 K.W for domestic light was energized on 26.12.1999 through meter no. 241473. As per process, the old mechanical meters were required to be replaced with new electro-mechanical meter. The Notification for replacement of meter under Mass Meter Replacement Drive was generated on 24.09.2013 while same could not be executed as consumer adamantly refused to change the old meter with new meter. The consumer was being persuaded to get the meter replaced however all efforts went into vain. Since, the consumer refused and was adamant not to change the old meter therefore, the supply against the connection was disconnected on 30.05.2017. Hence, the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature as same has been filed merely to restore the connection with old meter hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that her electricity supply was disconnected without giving her any notice etc. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that the electric meter which was installed at the premises of the Complainant was old meter (mechanical) and the said old meters were to be replaced by the new meters. It is the case of Opposite Parties that the Opposite Parties requested and told the Complainant that her electric meter was required to be changed but the Complainant did not agree for the same. It is important to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the Opposite Parties had given any notice etc. to the Complainant for changing the meter. Therefore, this plea of the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted. Admittedly the electric supply of the Complainant was disconnected therefore, under these circumstances we are of the opinion that electric supply was disconnected without giving any notice etc. to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency of service.
5. The perusal of the record shows that interim order was made on 23.02.2018 for supply/installation of the electricity meter and connection. Therefore, no order is required to be passed regarding the direction to the Opposite Parties for supply of the electricity connection. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the Complainant for disconnecting the electric supply by the Opposite Parties without giving her notice. This amount shall be paid jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties along with interest @ 6 % p.a. form the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties also pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses.
6.  Order announced on 26.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)