State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Bses Yamuna Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 23 September, 2014
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 23.09.2014 First Appeal No.230/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-X, Udhyog Sadan C-22 & 23, Institutional Area Behind Qutub Hotel, Delhi-110016, in Complaint Case No. 797/2005) Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Sharam Dutt House No. 17/65 Dakshin Puri New Delhi-110062 Appellant VERSUS BSES Yamuna Rajdhani Power Ltd. BSES Bhawan, Building No. 20 Nehru Place Delhi-110019 ..Respondent CORAM S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) Judgment
1) A very limited grievance of the complainant/appellant against the order dt. 31.12.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 797/2005 is that, an inadequate amount of compensation and costs has been awarded by the Ld. District Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi.
2) The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the complaint, passed the impugned order in complete disregard of physical and mental suffering, insult, injury and loss suffered by the complainant by the hands of the OP/respondent. Inspite of several representations and requests, the OP/respondent did not bother to revise electricity bills of the complainant for the Month November, 2002, several bills for the year 2003, and bill for January, 2004. It is noteworthy that Ld. District Forum in its order dt. 06.10.2008 in Complaint Case No. 797/05 has categorically observed that OP/respondent was guilty for deficiency of service for not changing the meter within 30 days and not having raised bill for the defective meter in consonance with Regulation 21 of the DERC.
3) Complaint No. 797/05 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs BSES Yamuna Rajdhani Power Ltd. was disposed of by the Ld. District Forum through its order dt. 06.10.2008 holding that, the OP/respondent is deficient in providing service and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The complainant/appellant was dis-satisfied with the quantum of the compensation, preferred First Appeal No. 1052/2008 before the Honble State Commission, New Delhi. The Honble State Commission through its order dt. 17.12.2008 agreed with the contention of the complainant/appellant that the amount of compensation was meagre and inadequate and remanded back the matter for a fresh disposal after providing respondent reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Ld. District Forum concerned, through its order dt. 31.12.2012 disposed of the complaint, awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
4) At the very outset, it has to be mentioned that at the time of hearing of the arguments, there was none for the appellant. Only Sh. Arav Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent was heard. We have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned order dt. 31.12.2012. It is undisputed that the OP/respondent has complied with the earlier order dt. 06.10.2008 as well as impugned order dt. 31.12.2012 passed in complaint case No. 797/2005. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that this appeal (Second Time) is guided by pure greed and the Ld. District Forum in compliance of the State Commissions order dt. 17.12.2008 disposed of the complaint case a fresh in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was thus frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of law and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
5) While passing the impugned order dt. 31.12.2012, the Ld. District Forum observed that the parties were heard. The District Forum noted that respondent had to agitate the matter with the officials of the BSES so many times and had to pay several visits to their office. Having regard to all relevant facts, circumstances and material on record and also keeping in mind the observations of the Honble State Commission, the OP/respondent was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards meeting the costs of litigation.
This order has already been complied with by the OP/respondent. Thus the Ld. District Forum has taken into account all the facts, circumstances, mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, in its impugned order dt. 31.12.2012. It has considered the fact that word compensation was of wide connotation.
6) It is a fact that while awarding compensation, the Court/Forum must keep in mind the physical and mental sufferings and also the extent of insult, injury or the loss. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dt. 31.12.2012. In our point of view the amount of compensation and costs awarded do not appear inadequate or unjust. Therefore the appeal is found to be incompetent and deserves dismissal. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dt. 31.12.2012 is hereby confirmed.
7) Let a copy of the judgment/order be made available to the parties free of cost as per rule, thereafter file be consigned to record room.
8) A copy of the order be also placed on the complaint file.
(S.A.SIDDIQUI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (S.C.JAIN) MEMBER FATIMA