State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Kumari Gupta vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 19 December, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 19.12.2006 Appeal No.564/2004 (Arising from the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by District Forum(West) Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.930/2001) Smt. Raj Kumari Gupta Appellant. B-25, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi. Versus 1. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited Appellant DVB, Nehru Place through Mr. Avinash New Delhi. Advocate. 2. Sh. S.K. Jain, Executive Engineer DVB, Dabri More, Janak Puri, New Delhi. 3. Sh. A.K. Tyagi, Assistant Engineer(D) PLM Zone 1503, Delhi Vidyut Board, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Sh. Mahesh Chandra 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. Appellant deposited a sum of Rs.11,145/- on 26.02.1999 for grant of new electricity connection. For more than two long years the connection was not granted. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the instant complaint before District Forum.
2. Vide impugned order dated 11.02.2002 the complaint of the appellant was dismissed being devoid of merit.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Admittedly the new connection was given on 08.09.2001 whereas the complaint was filed on 04.09.2001. Though there is delay of two years in giving electricity connection but the reason given by the respondent was that the electricity connection was delayed because premises of the appellant could not be located and the appellant also did not contact the respondent till 03.07.2001.
5. As against this the plea of the appellant was that the respondent directed her to deposit Rs.60/- for inspection of the premises and inspite of depositing the amount of Rs.60/-, no connection was provided to her.
6. Let us assume that the premises was not traceable and it was difficult for the respondent to locate the premises of the appellant for installing the connection, still the fact remains that the respondent took two long years after she deposited Rs.60/- for the electricity connection to be installed.
7. Whenever, service provider receives charges for installing the electricity connection it has to install within reasonable period and no excuse is permissible as the retention of such amount for two long years is unauthorised. Such a conduct of the service provider amounts to deficiency in service, which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertake to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
8. It appears that it was only after getting disappointed that the appellant deposited Rs.60/- for site inspection. If on deposit of Rs.60/- site could be easily located, the reason given by the respondent that for two long years the premises of the appellant could not be located, is a flimsy and lame excuse.
9. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, the appeal is allowed. We award Rs.5,000/- as compensation, which shall include the cost of litigation also for delayed electricity connection. The payment shall be made within one month.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
11. 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.
Announced today on 19th day of December 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Mahesh Chandra) Member Tri