State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.B. Parmarthi vs Delhi Vidyut Board Through on 9 September, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 9th September 2008 Complaint No.C-163/2001 Shri S.B. Parmarthi - Complainant S/o J.C. Dharupta, C/o K.R. Sharma, 167, West Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-6. Versus Delhi Vidyut Board through, -Opposite Party Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Through Nehru Place, Mr. Harshendu Kumar New Delhi. Advocate. CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant has through this complaint sought compensation and refund of the excessive payment recovered by the OP and for deficiency in service. Case of the complainant in, brief, is that he hired his residential accommodation from allottee of the premises bearing No.B-I/56A, D.D.A Flat, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 in January, 1991 exclusive of electricity and water charges.
2. That on 14th August, 2000 some person knocked on the door of the complainant and told that power supply of the premises had been disconnected due to non-payment of pending bills.
Since that day the power supply of the residential premises was cut off. The complainant tried to contact the allottee/landlord of the premises who was under
litigation in the court to get the premises vacated from the complainant, but the complainant failed to contact him.
3. That on 17th August, 2000 the petitioner/complainant collected and paid the duplicate bill of pending bills and requested for reconnection of the power supply in residence of the complainant. The complainant was directed to deposit reconnection charges with meter security because meter had been removed.
After much struggle the Divisional office of the Delhi Vidyut Board agreed for new documentation by name of the complainant and ordered to pay Rs.1720/- security for meter with reconnection charges. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1720/- on 19th August, 2000.
4. That on 21st August, 2000 the complainant contacted Assistant Engineer. The Asstt. Engineer referred the case to Junior Engineer who was not in his office and the complainant tried again and again but could not meet him upto 22nd August, 2000 and third day was holiday. After three days the Junior Engineer told that they had no new meters. The Asstt. Engineer was not in his office and the complainant could meet him only on 25th August, 2000 and requested him to issue the meter for reconnection of the power supply as per reconnection order approved by Divisional Office of Delhi Vidyut Board. The Assistant Engineer behaved roughly and ordered to meet Junior Engineer again. The Junior Engineer was not available in his office.
5. That on 27th August, 2000 the complainant succeeded to meet the J.E and he replied that we have meter but you have to approve the issue order of meter from said Assistant Engineer. On 28th August, 2000 the A.E created new problem that the meter was removed out long time ago so complainant had to pay bill for said period on name of the allottee/landlord because the complainant was not in the revenue record of Delhi Vidyut Board. The Financial Officer made duplicate bill again amounting to Rs.2137.42.
6. That on 29th August, 2000, the power supply was reconnected in the residence of the complainant after facing various problems created by the employees of Delhi Vidyut Board to harass the complainant and his family in hottest temperature of Delhi continuously for 16 days.
7. That the complainant presented his request addressed to Executive Engineer in Divisional Office on 16th January, 2001 that the complainant had vacated the hired premises by Court order. So he had no need of power supply in the said premises bearing No.56A, B1 Block, DDA Flat, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as such the security for Meter No.158618 deposited by the complainant/consumer may kindly be refunded. The officials of the Executive Engineer refused to receive and diary the said application. The complainant was compelled to give them by post the said request.
8. That the Commercial Officer replied that the file was in record room and ordered his peon to bring the file and roughly replied to the complainant that he would send upto Saturday in that week the documents to financial office for further action to release the security. The complainant requested Commercial officer to give him No Objection Certificate by hand to release the pending amount of security from the financial office.
9. That the complainant approached the Executive Engineer in his office room. Assistant Engineer, power supply entered the room. He roughly misbehaved with the complainant and told to come next week on Monday.
10. That on Monday 26th March, 2001 the complainant visited the Divisional Office, Jahangirpuri as directed by A.E.P.S and asked from dispatching clerk who replied that he had sent his file to dispatching office.
11. That on 27th March, 2001 the complainant visited the Accounts Superintendent in Financial office of Delhi Vidyut Board at Shalimar Bagh. The Accounts Staff directed him to contact diary clerk. The dealing clerk checked the dak and replied that his file was not not in the dak handed over by the peon and asked when and by which diary number it was dispatched by Divisional office to that office. Due to no other alternative, the complainant had to rush to Divisional Office, Jahangirpuri where the dispatch clerk replied that one hour before that day the peon received and carried the dak with his file by dispatching No.S.m.r/01-9346 on dated 26.3.2001.
12. That the complainant then rushed back to Financial Office, Shalimar Bagh and conveyed the same to the diary clerk. The said diary number file was not alongwith other serial wise dak which was handed over by peon to the clerk.
The clerk enquired from the peon and he replied that he forgot the said file at his home. The complainant was told by the clerk that the Financial Officer had retired on 31st January, 2001 and was asked to contact the officiating incharge.
13. That on 27th March, 2001 the complainant met the Accounts Superintendent and handed over the file to him with the request to make cheque of deposited security of Rs.1720/- which was to be refunded. The Accounts Superintendent checked the documents in file and replied that the NOC for refundable amount is Rs.1600/- only made by the Divisional Office and told him to come after 10th April.
14. That on 10th April, 2001 the complainant was present in the office room of Accounts Superintendent, where none attended to him and left. Again on 12th April, the complainant was present in the Accounts office and asked Accounts Superintendent to give him cheque by hand so that the complainant could get cash on the same day.
The Accounts Superintendent signed and requested the Section Officer, who refused and argued that they had strict order to give any cheque by post so they would post the cheque on the address given in the complainants application.
The complainant was told to come on Monday.
15. That on Monday, the 16th April, 2001 again the dealing clerk replied that the cheque was to be signed and day after tomorrow, he would go to Rohini Divisional Office of the Delhi Vidyut Board to get signed the cheque from officiating Financial Officer. In the afternoon on Friday, the cheque was ready the complainant received the cheque for Rs.1581/-.
16. Complainant has prayed that the decree of claim of minimum Rs.20,00,000/-(Rs.20 lacs) be passed with special cost and actual refundable amount in his favour.
17. In its defence the OP pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on its part. The refund whatsoever, has already been refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.395398 drawn on State Bank of India, Chandani Chowk Branch, Delhi.
18. As per records of the OP, the supply of the said connection was disconnected on 06.04.1998 due to non payment of outstanding dues and meter was removed from the site on 04.12.1998. The OP has also admitted that the supply was disconnected on 14.08.2000 which clearly implies that he was using the supply illegally since 06.04.1998 i.e. the date of disconnection of supply. That the complainant has been stealing electricity by using direct supply without paying any charges for more than two years from the date of disconnection and moreover is filing a case against OP.
19. OP further averred that supply is considered to be dormant if the supply is disconnected more than 6 months and for that other additional commercial formalities are required to be completed. As per record, electric connection K.No.504-145622/DL stands sanctioned in the name of Shri O.P. Babbar S/o Shri Bhagwan Dass at premises No.56-A, Block-B, Pocket-I, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on 01.06.1988. On 17.08.2000 Shri S.B. Parmarthi approached the O.Ps office at District Shalimar Bagh, and applied for restoration of disconnected connection of abovesaid K.No. and also applied for transferring the connection in his name. The electricity supply of the same connection was lying disconnected w.e.f 06.04.1998 at reading 9608 and with outstanding dues of Rs.4964.17 paisa as per ledger report of the month June, 2000. Shri S.B. Parmarthi paid the electricity dues on 17.08.2000 and also submitted some documents of the court through which it appeared to O.P that some dispute between Shri O.P. Babbar, the landlord and Shri S.B. Parmarthi, the tenant was pending and a case was also pending in the civil court. Since O.P. Babbar, Registered Consumer was not coming forward for restoration of supply and on the basis of court cases which showed the complainant as tenant, an electricity connection was sanctioned in his name on 19.08.2000 after taking approval for competent authority and the order for restoration was sent to A.E. concerned alongwith test notice etc. after completing necessary formalities as connection had become government and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1720/- as consumption deposit plus reconnection fee plus installation checking charges.
20. That an Assessment Bill was raised and issued to the consumer for Rs.2137.42 p. which have been paid by the consumer on 29.08.2000 as per record. Thereafter the supply was restored through new meter on 29.08.2001 in the name of Shri S.B. Parmarthi, the complainant.
21. That as per record on 22.06.2001, a letter was received through Exchange Office whereby the complainant was requesting for refund of the said amount as he had reported that he had vacated the house. In the meantime, Shri O.P. Babbar, the landlord approached the office of the OP with the request on 27.12.2000 asking for transferring the connection in his name as the key of the said house was reported to have been handed over to him by Shri S.B. Parmarthi, the complainant. Accordingly the complainant was informed vide office letter dt.
CB/SMB/0/8693 dated 27.12.2000 and office letter dt. 27.12.2000 at two different addresses apprising the complainant about this fact but the complainant failed to give any response. On 03.03.2001, after waiting, Shri O.P. Babbar deposited the balance security of Rs.650/- plus installation checking charges of Rs.60/- and connection was transferred in the name of the land lord Shri O.P. Babbar and the A.F.O was informed to refund the security deposit as per rules to the complainant. The OP is no where deficient in service and the complainant was always dealt very politely and the intention was to do it as early as possible. But due to certain limitations, and only after receiving of complete information about meter energization particularly from the concerned office, further steps were taken as per rules for refund of security amount. Refund of security also involves dealing at various hands such as commercial section and assistant finance officer/account departments etc., therefore, since the OP is not any individual person as the complainant is, some time was required to refund the security amount.
22. In his rejoinder the complainant denied that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP/or OP can not be held liable for any payment etc. It is categorically admitted by the OP that only a simple amount of compensation can be awarded in case the OP is found to be deficient in services. In view of the facts elaborated in the aforesaid complaint, a clear case of deficiency of service is made out, and accordingly the complaint of the complainant in terms of prayers may be allowed.
23. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of facts and rival claims and contentions of the parties the main dispute was between landlord and the tenant that resulted in disconnection of electricity connection as the original electricity connection was in the name of the complainant in his capacity as tenant. It was in the year 2000 when he approached the OP for reconnection of the electricity in his name the supply was not reconnected in his premises even after having faced various problems and running from pillar to post to JE to AE and to Ex. En. Etc. His request to issue meter and reconnection of power supply as per reconnection order approved by the Divisional Office of the OP was not acceded to. Ultimately on 29th August 2000 the power supply was reconnected. So much so even the refund of the security deposit was refused by the OP when he approached the Divisional Office on 16-01-2001 informing that he had already vacated the premises pursuant to a litigation between him and the land lord. To get security deposit he had to run from pillar to post and some time to the Accounts Office, Shalimar Bagh, Dealing Clerk, Financial Office, Accounts Superintendent etc. and it was only on 16-04-2001 i.e. after about 7-8 months the security amount of Rs. 1,581/- was refunded to the complainant.
24. In our view OP was deficient in service firstly in not restoring the connection of the electricity of the appellant after receipt of the entire dues which were recovered by way of arm twisting tactics and secondly by removing the meter and slapping allegation of the theft of electricity as once the meter was removed electricity could not be used but no material was produced by the OP that the appellant had been using electric supply directly from the pole and thirdly by making him running from pillar to post for the recovery of his security amount.
25. Taking over all view of the matter and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellant at the hands of the officials of the OP, we deem that a lump sum compensation of rs. 25,000/-
besides Rs.
5,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.
26. Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
27. Copy of the order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
28. Announced on 9th September, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj