State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs T. Samuel on 30 April, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 30-04-2013 Case No. FA-11/313 (Arising from the order dated 23.05.2011 passed in CC No. 204/10 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, North East, Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi-91.) BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. - APPELLANT BSES Bhawan, Shakti Kiran Building, Kakardooma, Delhi-92. Through its Managing Director Versus SH. T. SAMUEL - RESPONDENT R/o B-70/F-5 Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95. CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President MS SALMA NOOR - Member V.K. GUPTA - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? V.K. GUPTA (ORAL) ORDER
1. This appeal by the OP of the Case No. 204/10 is directed against the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the District Forum, North East, Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi-91, directing the appellant/OP for the refund of Rs. 2,338/- and Rs. 5712/- and also a compensation of Rs. 6000/-.
2. Appeal stated, the factual scenario is that the appellant/OP served a notice dated 26.2.10 alleging the electricity meter tampering by the complainant. When the pressure was made by the OP on the complainant, he had to fill-up the Voluntary Declaration Forum under protest and he was penalised with paying an amount of Rs. 2338 and the Assessment Bill Meter Tampering of Rs. 5712/-. The meter was not tempered at any point of time by the complainant in as much as the electricity meter belonging to the appellant/OP.
Despite of many representations submitted by the complainant to the appellant/OP, nothing has been done, therefore, complainant filed a complaint for the refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Appellant/OP filed written statement and denied the entire allegations. It is contended that the complainant himself declared the tempering of the meter of the connection K. No.1211 1527 1680, CRN No. 1210122269, meter No. 12088658 was found failed and was not matching as per report of the Analyst dated 24.5.10. Further it was contended that as per Rule 55 clause (C) of DERC, the licensee (BSES) shall not move the special court in case a consumer voluntary declares the tampered meter and pays the requisite charges in time. It was further contented that in case of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction at all.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 23.5.2011 directed the appellant to refund Rs, 2338/- and Rs. 5712/- deposited by the complainant and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2011, the OP preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard Sh. Ranvijay, Proxy Counsel appearing on behalf of the main counsel Ms. Shweta Kapoor for the Appellant and the respondent present in person and perused the material on record.
7. It was very vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was taken off on the basis of the VDS form which was filled by the complainant himself and new meter was installed, therefore, the complainant is barred from raising any issue on inspection of the assessment made on the basis of the VDS. On the other hand, it is argued by the respondent present in person that the VDS form was submitted by him on the basis of wrong notice issued by the appellant and the officer, Sh. Vikram Singh (Business) of the appellant has pressurized him that in case the VDS form is not filled by him, the electric connection will be disconnected. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the inspection report of the concerning officer belonging to the appellant was submitted and found no fault at all, however, the meter was sent to be examined by the laboratory of the appellant/OP who submitted the report on 24.5.10. Both these two documents have not been filed by any of the parties in this case. The laboratory report dated 24.5.10 goes to show that LCD and meter LED was found OK and data retrieve was also found normal and the meter data found not matching, however, the conclusion was shown, Meter found faulty. Admittedly, the meter was installed by the appellant/OP in the premises of the respondent/complainant. Nowhere it is alleged at any point of time that it is the case of meter tampering. At the time of inspection, the load was found connected with the meter which was taken off from the premises of the complainant and subsequently tested by lab and found to be faulty. It appears was that the conclusion that is the meter found to be faulty is a deliberate attempt by the officer of the appellant/OP to save the skin of the appellant in as much as it is without any reason or basis.
We are with the complete agreement that the finding of the District Forum with regard to the refund of the amount in as much as there is no fault or any reason to pay the aforesaid two amounts to the appellant/OP.
8. So far as the amount of the compensation is concerned, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6000/-. Obviously when there are wrong allegations by the appellant/OP with regard to the use of the meter, which were not substantiated by any evidence, the complainant has to suffer mental pain, agony and sheer sufferings. Award of Rs.
6000/- as compensation by the District Forum cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination.
9. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
One copy of the order be sent to the concerned District Forum for their record. This file thereafter be consigned to Record Room.
11. The FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant as per rules.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER (V.K. GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) rn