CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DISTRICT NORTH-EAST
D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI
No.150/08
Sh.Rampal Singh
B-274, Kabir Nagar,
Shahdara,
Delhi-93 : Complainant.
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Distt. Nand Nagri, Tahirpur,
Shahdara, Delhi. : Opposite Party
Order
Shri U.C.Tiwari, President
According to the complainant, he had obtained an electric connection 1260V485 0171 for commercial purposes and for a load of 0.50 kw after completing commercial formalities. The OP had installed meter no. 12356410 against the above noted electric connection and the OP has raised the bill upto the reading 6111 corrected and there after the bill was raised upto there reading 6730 and subsequent bill was raised upto the reading 6896 and in this way 619 units were added twice. The OP did not withdraw the consumption of 619 units which were added into subsequent bills. Not only this an inspection was carried out on the premises on 6.3.2007 by the officials who were not competent to inspect and report regarding misuse of electric connection as the designation of this official was AG-3. The official of the company had sent a show cause notice dated 22.3.2007 alleging therein the commercial connection is being used for industrial purposes. This allegation is wrong, frivolous and vexatious as no industry was going on but only machinery was lying in the premises as unusable and the premises was used only as godown. In response to the above show cause notice, a reply was delivered on 3.4.2007 requesting therein that the premises may kindly be got rechecked to verify the facts stated in the reply by
Page 1 of 5
the complainant and it was also requested to withdraw the show cause notice. The photocopy of the reply is attached herewith as Annexure-‘A’. The OP neither reinspected the premises nor withdraw the show cause notice but the provisional order of assessment were passed and convey to the complainant vide letter dated 1.5.2007. It was also admitted in the said order that the inspecting official was Shri Surender Kumar and having the designation as AG-III. The photocopy of the order dated 1.5.2007 is attached herewith as Annexure-‘B’. The reply to this order dated 1.5.2007 was personally delivered in the tariff affiliation cell of the company on 15.5.2007 whereby OP was again requested not to raise the bill on the basis of the inspection dated 6.3.2007. The photocopy of the reply is attached herewith as Annexure-C. Instead of withdrawing the illegal demand, the OP had sent the disconnection notice dated 16.7.2007 for Rs.18447/- it was also directed in case the complainant wish to provide any clarification then contact Shri Dilip Aggarwal Commercial Officer on any working day. The photocopy of the said disconnection notice as Annexure-D. The complainant had contacted Shri Aggarwal Commercial Officer and he has directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- in case he wants to get his bill corrected. The complainant did not made the payment and therefore the bill of the complainant was not corrected. That at the instance of the above said officer, the supply of the complainant electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 8.1.2008. The photocopy of disconnection is attached herewith as Annexure-E. The complainant was not option but to make the payment of Rs.10000/- on 7.2.2008 to get the supply restored. The official of the OP are again visited the premises of the complainant to disconnect the supply due to non payment of the balance amount. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the complainant who prayed to draw the cost of 619 units charged two times in two subsequent bills. Direct the OP not to withdraw misuse charges levied on the basis on inspection dated 6.3.2007. Direct the OP to withdraw amount of late payment surcharges and also prayed for Rs.5000/- compensation for physical harassment & mental agony and Rs.5000/- cost of litigation.
Page 2 of 5
On filing of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP who filed his WS and alleged that K.No.1260V4850171 is registered in the name of complainant residing at B-274, Kabir Nagar, Delhi which was sanctioned for non-domestic purpose i.e. commercial purpose only, and on inspection, it was found that the connected load was found at 2.678 KW instead of sanctioned load 0.50 kw and the connection sanctioned for commercial category was being used for industrial purpose. It is also submitted that complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Because the connection regarding which the complaint has been filed is of commercial purpose. Hence this forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the complainant. Further alleged that the show cause notice under Section 126 of Electricity Act was issued as the complainant was found indulging in unauthorized use of Electricity and this Hon’ble Forum as no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. And the reply was filed by the complainant u/s 126 and detailed order was passed, hence he can only prefer an appeal u/s 127 of the Electricity Act. That is why this forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the case which is referred to Assessing Officer u/s126 of the Electricity Act. Further, it is contended by OP that it was wrong and denied that OP has raised the bill upto the reading 6111 corrected and thereafter the bill was raised upto there reading 6730 and subsequent bill was raised upto the reading 6896 and in this way 619 units were added twice. That further submitted that when 619 were not added twice or thrice but only once then the question of the withdrawing the bill by the OP does not arise at all. The bills issued to the complainant was on the basis of actual reading and tariff which was correct and as per rule. It is pertinent to mention herein that as per statement of account of the month of December, 2006, bill raised to the complainant till reading 6730 having consumption 619 units and in the month of February, 2007 till reading 6896 having consumption 785 units, therefore, the contention of the complainant that 619 units were added twice is completely baseless and highly denied. It is wrong and denied
Page 3 of 5
that when inspection was carried out on the premises on 6.3.2007 by the official who was not competent to inspect, as such the complaint should be dismissed.
The Complainant has filed his rejoinder and denied the averments made by the OP in his WS. The complainant has also filed his formal affidavit in support of his case.
We have heard the arguments of both the parties and gone through the records carefully. The record shows that it is admitted by the complainant himself that he has filed the complaint regarding the meter which is installed by the OP for commercial purpose. Therefore, this forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the billing if any of the commercial connection. However, if the commercial connection is for livelihood of the complainant, the forum may decide the case being the connection for commercial purpose also. But here the complainant has not filed any evidence that his commercial connection is for his livelihood therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed having no jurisdiction to forum to decide the case.
Besides the above, the inspection of the connection is made by the OP which is also admitted by the complainant and it was found that the commercial meter of the complainant was used for industrial purpose and show cause notice was issued to the complainant u/s. 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. It is also admitted by the complainant. A detailed order has been passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act by Assessing Authority. It is also admitted by the complainant. Hence the complainant should prefer and appeal u/s 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He is not entitled to file the complaint before this forum. Therefore, on this ground also, the forum has got not jurisdiction to decide the case.
Page 4 of 5
Thus, as we discussed above, we are of the view that the forum has got not jurisdiction to decide the above case. As such the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Announced ______ day of __________________, 2009.
(U.C.Tiwari) (Asha Kumar)
President Member
Tags: BSES Yamuna Power