National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Praveen Kumar on 20 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2008 (From the order dated 13.5.2008 in Appeal No. FA-452/07 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus Praveen Kumar R/o E-153, Forest Lane, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Verma & Mr. Arnav, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. N.C. Agrawal, Auth. Rep. PRONOUNCED ON 20th November, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. FA-452/07 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Praveen Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied for new connection on 9.1.2006.
OP/petitioner after processing application issued demand note for Rs.23,645/- which was deposited by complainant. OP installed electricity meter on 10.2.2006 and complainant also deposited electricity bill of Rs.1170/-. It was further submitted that on account of sparking in the terminal of the meter, complainant lodged complaint on 12.4.2006 and on 17.4.2006Mr. Ashok along with other staff of OP came to his house, removed meter with assurance that they will install new meter on next day, but new meter was not installed and they demanded Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification and threatened to implicate complainant in electricity theft case. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that application for permanent connection given by complainant was rejected in view of judgment of High Court as plot of complainant was of lesser area than one acre. It was further submitted that complainant in connivance with contractor tried to get temporary connection by showing the address of Neb Sarai instead of Sainik Farm. OP on learning the connivance terminated agreement with the contractor.
Only temporary connection was sanctioned which can be withdrawn if necessary information is not furnished or wrong information is furnished and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and OP was directed to reinstall electrical meter and restore the electricity and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and further directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- in Consumer Welfare Fund against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Authorised Representative of Respondent and perused record.
4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not press revision petition against relief (a) & (b) granted by learned State Commission, but presses revision petition only to the extent of relief c by which, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages in Consumer Welfare Fund.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per change of policy connections have already been released in the area in which respondents connection is to be released and petitioner is ready to release connection if respondent submits duly filled form for verification, etc. and in such circumstances, order directing to deposit amount with Consumer Welfare Fund may be set aside. On the other hand Authorized Representative of Respondent submitted that respondent is entitled to get more compensation and order passed by learned State Commission directing to deposit money with Consumer Welfare Fund is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
6. As far enhancement of compensation is concerned, respondent has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order and in such circumstances, amount awarded by learned State Commission to the respondent cannot be enhanced. Learned Authorized Representative of respondent placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in Appeal (Civl) No. 4910-4981 of 2005 Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh & Ors. for grant of compensation. In this case, National commission awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants, but Honble Apex Court reduced it to Rs.5,000/- and also reduced rate of interest. This case does not help to the respondent as petitioner is not pressing revision petition against compensation granted by learned State Commission. Petitioner is willing to make payment of compensation and cost of litigation as awarded by State Commission and is also willing to restore connection subject to fulfilment of necessary forms.
7. No doubt, respondent has suffered for a long period, but as petitioner is ready to restore connection, it would be appropriate to set aside direction of depositing Rs.50,000/- with Consumer Welfare Fund because petitioner is also a Government undertaking.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order dated 13.5.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.FA-452/07 Praveen Kumar Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is modified with direction to the petitioner regarding depositing Rs.50,000/- with Consumer Welfare Fund is set aside and rest of the order is upheld. Petitioner is directed to re-install electric meter and restore the electricity within 3 days from receipt of appropriate duly filled form for connection to be submitted by respondent without charging any fees for re-install/reconnection. Parties to bear their cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k