State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Budhwar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 7 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07.03.2008 Complaint No. CC-08/08 Mr. Raj Budhwar Complainant P-57, NDSE-II, Through New Delhi 110049. Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate Versus BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Opposite Party S/o Late Sh. B.P. Jain, Through R/o A-312/1, Ms. Subhashini Singh & Derawala Nagar, Ms. Nirmal Marwah, New Delhi 110009. Advocates CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. This is an application, though filed as a complaint, in continuation of our order dated 18.12.2007 moved by the complainant/applicant seeking redressal of his grievance against the excesses of the OP-BSES Rajdhani Power Limited. The sequence of events show that the complainant has suffered immensely at the hands of OP.
2. Inspite of having finally settled the dispute by out of court settlement dated 20.12.07 for arrears of Rs. 2,20,000/- which was payable in six instalments and the first instalment being Rs. 30,000/- and the complainant having already paid the first instalmnent as well as Rs. 36,000/- paid twice and also the current bill of Rs. 1562.57p., the OP has again raised a bill of Rs. 2,02,817.02p. without showing the adjustment of instalment of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 36,000/- twice as well as the current bill of Rs. 1562.57p. and still an arrear of Rs. 2,02,817.02p. has been shown which means that the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- has not been adjusted towards final settlement of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The counsel for the OP does not dispute the payment of Rs. 1,02,000/- by the complainant as the complainant has also produced the documents in respect of these payments.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the arrears shown in the bill of Rs. 2,02,817/- are hereby quashed. The OP shall not raise any bill of arrears and shall continue raising only the current months charges and go on accepting the payment of instalments as agreed by out of court settlement dated 20.12.07. Any violation in this regard shall be taken very seriously and the CEO of the OP may face action u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act as inspite of our order dated 18.12.2007 passed in Appeal No. 1404/02, the complainant has been approaching us again and again as the OP has been raising huge bills inspite of the direction that a bill of Rs. 95000/- be raised against the bill of Rs. 1,78,050/- towards which the OP had received the payment of Rs. 83,000/-.
The complainant paid the aforesaid amount but the OP has been raising bills running into lacs of rupees and the last bill raised was for Rs. 3,14,370/-.
4. For such malafide, oppressive, arbitrary conduct, the respondent should know that if any compensation or any amount is recoverable, that can be recovered through their personal salaries as called upon by the Supreme Court in case after case and recently in case of Gzaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65. The observations of the Supreme Court are pithy and need to be reproduced as under :
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities.
Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine the amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for this sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers.
Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of the law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour.
5. This order shall be complied with within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
8. Announced on 7th day of March, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc