National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Purshottam Behl vs Messers B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power ... on 4 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 (Against the order dated 06.11.2007 in Complaint Case No. C-88/2000 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Purshottam Behl S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Behl Sole Prop., M/s Jaipur Auto Service Khasra No. 428 Village Rangpuri, NH-8 Delhi Gurgaon Road New Delhi-110037 & Resident of H.No. B-16, Sector-8 Pappan Kalan, Dwarka New Delhi-110075 Appellant Versus Messers B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited (Successor-in-interest of Erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board) Through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/ Principal Officer concerned B.S.E.S. Bhawan, Nehru Place New Delhi-110019 (India) Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For Appellant : Mr. Om Prakash Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shveta Kapoor, Advocate Pronounced on 4th April, 2013 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
1. This First Appeal has been filed by Purshottam Behl, Appellant herein and Original Complainant before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had only partly allowed his complaint against M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, Respondent herein and Opposite Party before the State Commission.
2. FACTS :
In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant-Complainant had contended that he is the sole proprietor of a small auto repair workshop which he operates on 215 square yards of land owned by him on the Delhi-Gurgaon Road. Consequent to a policy introduced by the Respondent in the year 1997 for the grant of Non-Domestic Power Connection in the non-conforming areas of the Union Territory of Delhi, on 27.07.1997 Appellant-Complainant had applied for 2 KW electricity load in the prescribed application format. He also executed an agreement in the form supplied by the Respondent, according to which he was required to maintain his own line till service lines/LV mains were installed by the Respondent. He further agreed that Respondent would not be responsible for any damage/loss to man or material from the line maintained by him.
Appellant-Complainant received a show cause notice dated 20.04.1998 from an Assistant Engineer of the Respondent informing him that a report of theft of electricity had been lodged against him in Police Station Vasant Kunj as the electricity load consumed by him had been assessed as 9.312 KW against the sanctioned load of 2 KW and consequently a sum of Rs.2,42,998.75 ps. was demanded from him. Appellant-Complainant made a representation to the Respondent pointing out that in the second quarter of 1997 Respondent had advertised in leading newspapers that all those who are having houses or plots in the authorized/unauthorized colonies can obtain an electricity connection by paying charges @ Rs.75/- per square yard which was later on increased to Rs.95/- per square yard, which he had done and, therefore, it was with malafide intention that this complaint had been made by the Respondents Assistant Engineer and Lineman to whom he had refused to pay a bribe. The electricity connection provided to the Appellant-Complainant had also been illegally disconnected on 18.04.1998. Further, the allegation that there was 9.312 KW electricity consumption was incorrect because Appellant-Complainant had never applied for more than 2 KW to the Respondent. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondent, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and sought a total compensation of Rs.9,87,546/-, which included the following :
(A) For the quashing/cancellation of demand raised in the Provisional Bill dated 20.4.1998 2,42,995-75 (B) For the Compensation/Loss of amount in incurrage of Additional Diesel Cost of Rs.100/- per day since 20.4.1998 73,000-00 (C) On account of compensation, mental harassment, agony, torture, lowering in the estimation of his Friends, Colleagues, relatives, Social Circle and Business Circle 5,50,000-00 (D) For loss in Business Income, since 20.4.1998 upto the date of filing this complaint 1,00,000-00 (E) On account of charges for legal notice fee paid to the counsel by the complainant 5,500-00 (F) For the restoration of the Non-Domestic Electricity Connection, calculated at the rate of 25% charges for development obtained from the complainant by the Respondent/Opposite Party 16,048-00
3. When the case came up before the State Commission, Respondent/Opposite Party did not submit any reply, written version or affidavit by way of evidence. The State Commission, therefore, on the basis of evidence produced before it partly allowed the complaint by observing as follows :
6. So far as the allegations of direct theft of electricity is concerned it has no basis particularly in view of the aforesaid clause 7 of the agreement between the parties that till service lines/L.V. Mains are installed by DVB complainant shall maintain his own line and that DVB will not be responsible for any loss/damage to man/material from the line maintained by the complainant.
7. As regards the allegation of having used higher load than the sanctioned load the OP has neither filed any reply nor any material to show and prove the said allegation. Even otherwise connection was granted on 29-07-1997 and it was disconnected on 18-04-1998 on the basis of the show cause notice dated 18-04-1998.
In between no inspection of the premises was ever done by the OP. Furthermore, the subsequent policy of the OP advertised in the National newspapers in the second quarter of the year 1997 i.e. much prior to the show cause notice and the disconnection of the electricity that all those houses or plots in authorized or unauthorized colonies can obtain electric connection by paying charges @ Rs.75/- per sq. yd. and the complainant had made the payment and the connection was granted.
8. The cumulative effect of the agreement between the parties as well as subsequent advertisement and lack of evidence on the part of the OP to prove the allegation of having used more load than the sanctioned load, particularly when the OP did not lay down the main line and service lines/L.V. mains and allowed all the consumers to maintain their own line at their own risk, the demand was wholly unjustified and illegal.
The State Commission, therefore, quashed the demand of Rs.2,42,998.75 ps. raised by the Respondent against the Appellant-Complainant on account of electricity consumption. However, no other relief as prayed for was granted. Hence, the present appeal seeking compensation.
5. Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that even though the State Commission had concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of Respondent and thus quashing the wrong demand of Rs.2,42,998.75 ps. made by Respondent, it erred in not awarding any compensation since the Appellant had been left without any electricity following its disconnection in 1998. When queried by us regarding the present status of electricity, Counsel for the Appellant stated that in 2004 Appellant had taken another similar connection in the name of his son and, therefore, from that year onwards he did have electricity supply in his premises but prior to that there was no electricity connection from 1998. Therefore, he had been deprived of the same for about 6 long years from 1998 to 2004, for which the compensation has been requested.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent while confirming that it had accepted the order of the State Commission and had also refunded the amount of Rs.2,42,998.75 ps. to the Appellant as directed by the State Commission, contended that as per the policy of the Respondent two commercial electricity connections cannot be sanctioned for one premises and, therefore, Appellant cannot now claim restoration of his own electricity connection since he had already been sanctioned another connection in the name of his son.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record.
We agree with the order of the State Commission that the Respondent had wrongly disconnected Appellants power supply and, therefore, the sum of Rs.2,42,998.75 ps. demanded by it was not justified. Respondent had accepted this order and had refunded the amount. While we agree with the contention of Counsel for the Respondent that as per the policy two commercial electricity connections cannot be sanctioned in the same premises, the Appellant needs to be compensated for the 6 long years during which period he was wrongly deprived of the electricity connection. After taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that a compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs is justified and reasonable. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and in the partial modification of the order of State Commission direct the Respondent to also pay the Appellant a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation within a period of 8 weeks, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.
Sd/-
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mukesh