State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd vs Laxmi Chand Sharma on 21 August, 2007
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: 21.08. 2007 First Appeal No.1148/2003 (Arising from the order dated 11.06.2003 passed by District Forum (East) Nand Nagari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.343/2002) BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Appellant, Through Executive Engineer through Mr. Avinash, District Office Nand Nagari, advocate. Delhi. Versus Sh. Laxmi Chand Sharma .Respondent D-203, Mandoli Road, in person. Jagat Puri, Delhi. 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. Admittedly the appellant showed credit amount of Rs.11,062/- in favour of the respondent towards the electricity bill. He sought refund of the security amount as well as removal of the meter because the service line has already been removed and also refund of the amount Rs.68,425/- deposited by him for enhancement of the load as the load was not enhanced by the appellant.
2. Vide impugned order dated 11.06.2003, the appellant has been directed to refund Rs.68,425/- charged for enhancement of the load.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 24.05.1999, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.68,425/- for enhancement of the load but on 13.08.1999 on inspection was carried out and respondent was found using the enhanced load, the respondent was booked for FAE and a bill of Rs.2,30,421/- was raised by the appellant. It is also contended that respondent had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the recovery of the said amount and by way of an interim order dated 30.08.1999, the respondent was directed to deposit 50% of the bill raised by the appellant, in two instalments. It is further contended that in December, the factory of the respondent was closed on the direction of the Honble Supreme Court of India being hazardous in the non-conforming area.
5. Even if we accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant still the fact remains that no steps were taken by the appellant for enhancement of the load by laying down the service line or other steps inspite of having received the consideration of Rs.68,425/- from the respondent. For inaction on the part of the appellant in not taking steps for enhancement of the load, the use of the enhanced load by the respondent was irrelevant so far as refund of the amount charged by the appellant was concerned. The allegation of using the enhanced load by FAE is an independent allegation and independent action was taken by the appellant. So far as receipt of Rs.68,425/- was concerned, the appellant did not do anything and therefore the forfeiture of this amount was unjustified, uncalled for and unscrupulous as consideration is paid and received for doing certain acts and if those acts are not done at all, the service provider has to refund the consideration received by it with interest.
6. However, in the instant case, the District Forum has only directed the appellant to refund an amount of Rs.68,425/- as well as Rs.11062/- shown in the credit of the respondent. If the appellant has obtained any decree for recovery of certain amount it may proceed with the execution independently but that decree has no relevant or effect on the merit of the case as the respondent has not sought any relief against the bill of Rs.2,30,421/- raised by the appellant on the alleged allegation of FAE.
7. In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
9. 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 21st day of August 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri