State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepankar Kumar Chopra vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 10 October, 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: 10.10. 2007 First Appeal No.07/621 (Arising from the order dated 16.07.2004 passed by District Forum (South-X) Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.85/2006(615/2005) Deepankar Kumar Chopra .Appellant, U/G D.K. Chopra S/o R.N. Chopra in person. A/A 1039, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Versus BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Respondent, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New 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 Deepankar Chopra who filed the instant complaint before the District Forum was a minor and no electricity connection was sanctioned or issued in his name. He filed the complaint only on the allegation that he was booked by the respondent company for committing theft of electricity and subsequently bill was also raised upon the appellant.
2. Vide impugned order dated 16.07.2007, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer as neither he was the person who had hired or availed the services of the respondent nor is the present beneficiary of the services of the respondent. The Services of the respondent were availed by the original owner in whose name the electricity connection and meter was issued. Merely because the appellant who was minor, a case of theft was booked by the respondent was no reason for the respondent to raise the bill upon him and the District Forum has not only taken note but also observed that it was upon the respondent to ensure that the bill was raised either in the name of the owner or in the name of the person claiming himself to be the consumer and not upon the stranger.
3. Since the appellant did not fall within the definition of consumer, the instant complaint was rightly dismissed. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with the liberty to file complaint by the person who is having electricity connection or the person who claims himself to be the beneficiary of the service or claims himself to be consumer. The limitation shall start from the date of receipt of this order as respondent itself had committed grave error in raising the bill in respect of the person who was neither consumer nor claimed himself to be a consumer nor was shown as consumer in their record.
4. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
5. 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 10th day of October 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri