B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED vs PUSHPA SHARMA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 5.2.2003, passed by District Forum Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 428/2002/DF-VII-entitled Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. THE Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Pushpa Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that she had purchased property bearing No. C-23A, Gali No. 9, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi from one Shri Mahavir Vats on power of attorney on 15.10.1993. It was stated that in the above said property, so purchased on power of attorney by the respondent, there was a domestic light connection and after the purchase of property by her, the respondent Smt. Pushpa Sharma, approached the appellant with the request that the existing domestic light connection in the property be transferred in her name. It was stated that a bill for Rs. 812/- showing up-to-date electricity charges was prepared by the appellant which was deposited by the respondent on 10.10.1997. THE respondent also deposited a sum of Rs. 95/- on account of transfer charges in respect of that electricity connection. It was stated that the respondent also applied for non-domestic light connection and for that purpose had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,675/- on 15.10.1997. It was stated that the appellant failed to transfer the existing domestic light connection in her name and also failed to instal non-domestic light connection in that property, as prayed by the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the above counts, it was prayed that a direction be issued to the appellant for immediate installation of a non-domestic light connection. In the complaint, the respondent also prayed that in respect of the domestic connection existing in that property, the appellant be directed to issue up-to-date bills after giving benefit of proper slab without any late payment surcharge. THE respondent had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and another sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

THE claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the existing domestic connection in the premises in question could not be transferred in the name of the respondent as there was an assessment due and outstanding against that connection and a bill for Rs. 57,545.85 was not paid. As regards installation on non-domestic light connection, it was stated that as there were dues outstanding against domestic connection, non-domestic light connection could not have been given. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and on the basis of the above findings, the learned District Forum has passed the order, being impugned in the present proceedings.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As per the case of the appellant, the existing domestic light connection in the property in question could not be transferred and non-domestic light connection could not be installed in the name of the respondent as the respondent has no locus standi to have the connection transferred in her name and secondly there were dues outstanding in respect of the existing domestic light connection. In our opinion, the above contention, being advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because the respondent adduced evidence in support of her case by means of affidavit stating all the facts stated by her in the complaint and placing on record a copy of the power of attorney and copies of the receipts vide which the payment demanded by the appellant was deposited by the respondent. The appellant, as is evident from the impugned order, has not led any evidence despite the fact that opportunities were granted to the appellant for the aforesaid purpose. In other words, the evidence adduced by the respondent in support of her case by means of affidavit had gone on record of the District Forum unrebutted and unchallenged and the learned District Forum was fully justified in placing reliance on the same in the given facts. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, which is a well-reasoned order, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.