ANU MANGLANI vs Delhi Vidyut Board

THE present appeal filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 14.7.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 6184/98 - entitled Sh. Anu Manglani & Anr. v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that they had been running their business in partnership under the name and style of ''Meena Bazar'', J-68, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and were using electricity through connection bearing No. K-3767151 since first week of December, 1997. It was alleged by them that they had been using the supply of the electricity as per Rules and had not committed any breach of any of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act or the rules framed thereunder. It was stated that on 22.5.1998, the abovesaid business premises of the appellants, where the abovementioned electricity connection was installed, were raided by the officials of the respondent alongwith the officials of Delhi Police and the respondent without any justification removed electricity meter, installed therein and also lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the appellants. It was also stated that the appellants approached the respondent on 26.5.1998 and after getting an assurance deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,327/-. THE appellants, at the time of deposit of the above amount, were also assured that the supply of electricity would be restored within a day or two which was restored but the amount of Rs. 1,25,327/- paid by the appellants to the respondent had not been refunded. It was prayed in the complaint, filed by the appellants, that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,25,327/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. THE appellants in the complaint also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claim of the appellants in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent and the stand taken by the respondent was that on 22.5.1998, a joint inspection of the premises of the appellants was carried out by a team of officials of the respondents under the supervision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sh. Neeraj Bhatia and during inspection direct theft of electricity was detected by tampering the service line feeding the meter. It was stated that as the appellants had indulged in theft of electricity a bill for Rs. 1,25,327/- was raised which was duly paid by the appellants. It was stated that on the detection of the direct theft of electricity, the tampered equipment, service line and the meter were removed and were deposited with the police where a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the appellants under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned District Forum vide order, being impugned in the present proceedings has held that there was no fault on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellants.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellants are consumer of electricity through electricity connection bearing No. K-3767151, installed at the business premises of the appellants, situated at J-68, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that on 22.5.1998, the team of officials of the respondent under the supervision of Sub-Divisional Magistrate carried out a joint inspection at the premises of the appellants where the abovesaid electricity connection was installed. It is also not in dispute that a First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against the appellants with the Authorities of the Police Department in respect of the alleged commission of a cognizable offence punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, read with Section 379, I.P.C. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity and calls for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.