B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED vs PYARA LAL

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the order dated 25.9.2003, passed by the District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 246/2003 entitled Shri Pyara Lal v. Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board (now B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited).

BRIEFLY stated, the facts, are that the respondent is having an agricultural power connection at his tube well in village Pandwala Kalan, New Delhi. However, the wires supplying electricity to 20 tube wells of said village including that of the complainant were stolen for which an FIR was lodged at Zafarpur Police Station and the same was also reported to the appellant with the request by the respondent to issue bills for consumption of electricity only upto 9.7.1996 i.e., the date on which the electric wires were stolen. The appelant, however, without considering the representation of the respondent, issued a bill for the period from 24.12.1995 to 24.12.1997 which was paid by the respondent under protest. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellant to replace the stolen wires and also to reconnect the electric supply to the tube well of the respondent and refund the excess charges recovered from him for the period 9.7.1996 to October, 2002. The respondent had also prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with cost of the proceedings. The case of the appellant before the District Forum was that the respondent had failed to deposit the charges for consumption of electricity till July, 1996 and the payment was made towards the arrears only in March, 2001. However, in the meanwhile there was a Notification from the Ministry of Water Resources through the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) directing disconnection of electricity to unauthorisedly dug tube wells. As such, in the absence of permission issued by CGWA, electric supply could not be restored to the tube well of the respondent.

The learned District Forum, however, held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and as such directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation together with Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record as well as have heard the Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has upheld the contention of the appellants regarding delay on the part of the respondent in paying the consumption charges for the period July, 1996 till 2001 and as such has not held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service on this ground but the appellant has not shown any ground for the delay in energizing the connection of the respondent after the payment of the arrears of the electricity dues in March, 2001. In the present appeal the appellant has reiterated the contention that the respondent was required to obtain permission/approval from CGWA for grant of fresh connection to the tube well. However, the said contention of the appellant is erroneous, as has been rightly held by the learned District Forum, that permission of CGWA is required only for boring of fresh tube wells and not for existing tube wells, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the appellant to withhold supply of electricity to existing connection. Furthermore, as the electricity had been disconnected on account of theft of wires and not for any other reason there is no question of treating the connection as dormant. The contents of the Notification of CGWA dated 21.8.2000 is clear in this regard and as such is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As such, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.