State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manbir Singh vs B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd. on 11 August, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Appeal against the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by District Forum (North East District ) in complaint case no 36/2009) Date of Decision : 11.08.2010 Appeal No. FA-10/246 Shri Manbir Singh, B-343, MCD Quarter, New Usmanpur, Delhi-53. .. Appellant/Complainant. VS B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd., Through its Chairman/Director, Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi. Through its Chairman/Director The Executive Engineer, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., C-7, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi ..Respondents/OPs. CORAM Justice B.A. Zaidi, President M.L. Sahni, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
M.L. Sahni, Member(Judicial)
1. This complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2010, of the District Forum, North East, Nand Nagri, Delhi , dismissing his complaint C. No. 36/09, has come in appeal, praying for setting aside the impugned order and restoring his complaint for proper adjudication by the District Forum.
2. The case of the appellant , in short, is that, he has been residing on the fourth floor of M.C.D. Staff quarter and one Ms. Savitri Devi, was residing in the same compound at the ground floor and the electricity meters belonging to the people residing in the premises are installed at the ground floor. In July, 2003, official of the respondent-1 had come to remove the electricity meter of Savitri Devi whose meter was beside the electricity meter of the appellant. The officials of the respondent-1 instead of removing the electricity meter of Savitri Devi, had removed the electricity meter of appellant on 16.08.2003 without any rhyme or reason or knowledge of the appellant. The appellant was shocked to find that there was no electricity in his quarter. He called electrician who told him about the removal of the electricity meter. The appellant on the next day met the officials of the respondent-1 and asked about the reason for the removal of the electricity meter from his premises. He was told that the meter would be restored soon. The appellant on 15.10.2003 lodged a formal complaint with the respondent-1 and asked the respondents to restore his electricity meter which was wrongly removed by the officials of respondent-1. The appellant made a number of complaints dated 16.04.2004, 14.09.2004, 22.06.2006, 06.10.2006 and 14.11.2006 to respondents as well as to the other authorities. The respondent threatened to teach him a lesson and instead of rectifying their gross mistake raided the premises of the appellant in his absence on 25.06.2007 and raised false and fabricated bill of Rs. 73,936/- against the appellant for Direct Theft (DT)/ DAE (dishonest abstraction of energy) for which the appellant was not liable at all.
3. He prayed that electricity meter bearing K. NO. YV-612-1747714 of his premises may kindly be restored and false case of theft may be waived. Instead of going into the allegations of the appellant District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground of non-maintainability of the complaint.
4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Appellant , at the admission stage and gone through the impugned order.
5. From a bare perusal of the allegations it becomes abundantly clear, that the appeal is trying to cook-up a false and fabricated story to counter the case of theft of electricity registered by the Respondents on 25.06.2007 and to stall the recovery of Rs. 73,936/- as per the bill raised by the Respondents.
6. It is un-believable , that the Appellant remained without electricity in his quarter since after July, 2003 , when his meter allegedly was removed by mistake, in place of the meter of Ms. Savitri Devi, a resident of ground floor quarter. As per his own case, his premises was raided on 25.06.2007, i.e. four years after the alleged removal of his meter in July, 2003.
7. Copy of the alleged written complaints regarding removal of meter (Annexure C) also appear to us fabricated, because copy placed at page11 of this appeal is that of complaint written by son of the Appellant which is un-dated, but receipt is shown as on dates 1.3.2004 & 16.04.2004, without having the whereabouts whom it is addressed. Receipt is also shown twice on this copy i.e. No. C/8/4062 and No. C/8/77. Another document, is copy of the complaint dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure C) placed at page-12, which also shows endorsement of Receipt dated 14.09.2004 at CS 806 dated 14.9.2004 acknowledged by the same person who had endorsed the earlier complaint. There is overwriting on the date which reads 14/07/2004 with cutting on figure 14 and cutting at figure 9 to read as 7. These documents alleged to be complainants one placed at page -12 is addressed to (DVB) BSES Rajdhani. There is the third complaint dated 25.5.2006 bearing same endorsement to read as Receipt No. 6 dated 26.6.2006, but person is shown having received this complaint is also the same.
8. Complaint dated 3.10.2006 made to Public Grievance Cell dated 3.10.2006 having the zerox-printing of the letter head of Public Grievance Cell , Office of Chief Ministeroffice of Department M/o Power/, then there is a copy of complaint dated nil but purported to have been received in the office of Minister of Transport of Delhi, on 27.7.2007 i.e. after the registration of electricity-theft case against the Appellant on 25.6.2007.
9. All these communication show that the Appellant has been trying to hoodwink the consumer Fora so as to mislead them to believe that the Appellant had been making written complaints to the Authorities since 16.4.2004 but to no response; that instead of rectifying their mistake registered a false case on 25.6.2007.
10. No person having common prudence can believe that the Appellant remained without Electricity in his Govt. quarter for the period from July, 2003 to 16.04.2004, even if it is presumed that (Annexure C) Page-11-12, were not forged documents as discussed above. He did not file copy of complaint dated 15.10.2003, alleged to have been made to the Respondents.
11. From all these facts borne on the record, it can be safely concluded that the Appellant tried to manipulate his case by fabricating documents to illegally substantiate his false story that the meter from his premises was wrongly /mistakenly removed by the officials of the Respondents in July, 2003 and since then he had been requesting them to rectify their mistake but to no relief.
12. We find not even a gain of truth in his entire fabricated and false story. The complaint of the Appellant, which was liable to be rejected at the very admission stage because matter regarding jurisdiction of the consumer Fora to entertain cases of consumers against whom theft charges are made is pending before the Honble Supreme Court, therefore, granting any relief to the Appellant could not have arisen, yet the Ld. District Forum entertained the complaint of the Appellant and issued notice to the Respondents who then moved an application for the dismissal of the complaint on the point of maintainability . Allowing application of the O.P., the Ld. District Forum observed that there is a specific provision in Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in case of assessment under section 126 with provision of appeal under section 127 likewise, section 135 in which the amendment was brought by the legislature that in case of theft of electricity, only special court will assess the civil liability. Further there are provisions under section 145 and under section 152 for compounding of such cases.
13. The case of the Appellant since was a counter-blast to to the theft-case registered against him on 25.6.2007, complaint filed in 2009, was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.
14. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, rather feel strongly constrained to hold that the complaint as well as the present appeal filed by the Appellant are, vexatious and frivolous, deserving dismissal u/s 26 of the C.P. Act.
15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- considering the appellant being a fourth-class employee in the M.C.D. Cost when recovered be deposited in State Consumer Welfare Fund.
16. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice B.A. Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member sk