State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bses Rajdhani Power Limited vs Pyare Lal on 24 April, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 24-04-2007 Appeal No. 434/2004 (Arising out of Order dated 24-04-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.11/2004) BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, Through Its Business Manager, District Najafgarh, New Delhi. . . . Appellant Through Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate Versus Mr. Pyare Lal, S/o. Shri Chander, Khasra No. 67/16, Village Mundhela Kalan, New Delhi 110073. . . . Respondent 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 (Oral)
1. The appeal was admitted for the limited purpose of ascertaining the damages / compensation awarded by the District Forum to the respondent. Vide impugned order dated 24-04-2004, the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the damages suffered by the respondent on account of gross laxity and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as a result of which he failed to run his tube well and irrigate his crops.
2. Admittedly, the respondent applied for an industrial connection and deposited Rs. 1800/- on 06-11-1997 but the appellant failed to energize the connection for long. According to the appellant, after sanctioning the power connection immediate steps were taken for energization of the connection. Estimate was prepared after inspection of the site but the connection could not be energized.
3. Since it was an agricultural connection the respondents livelihood depended upon the irrigation of land by way of tube well. Inordinate delay on the part of the service provider to energize the connection after sanctioning the same against requisite deposits amounts to deficiency in service which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quantity, 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 undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
4. In our view, the amount of compensation was inadequate in view of the nature of the electricity connection and the vocation of the respondent who solely depended upon his land.
5. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed being devoid of merits.
6. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
7. A copy of order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of cost and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be returned under proper receipt.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member HK