BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. vs Krishan Kumar

ON account of committing inordinate delay in energising the electricity connection, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the District Forum, held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

THE order has been mainly challenged on the ground that in the intervening period of application for electricity connection and its energisation, the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) issued a notification by keeping all new electricity connections in abeyance which could not be energised without its prior permission and on this premise, the appellant insisted the respondent to obtain a no objection certificate which he did but the electricity connection was not energised because he refused to pay the development charges amounting to Rs. 1,39,637. Relevant facts are as under : Respondent had applied for electric connection at his tube-well at village Jhatikra, New Delhi for agriculture purposes vide his application dated 11.11.1999 and deposited requisite fee of Rs. 1,800 with the DVB. The connection was, however, not sanctioned. Respondent made several oral and written requests to the DVB and thereafter BSES, the successor-in-interest of the DVB for sanction of the connection but without any results. Appellant slept over the matter for five years and only in 2004 it decided to sanction agriculture connections, applications for which were pending and the respondent was required to deposit Rs. 1,39,637 as development charges. According to respondent when he applied for connection in 1999 he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,800 only which he had deposited and delay if any in energizing the connection was due to laxity on the part of the appellant and, therefore, appellant is not liable to recover any development charges now applicable for new connections.

While justifying the non-energisation of the connection the appellant admitted that the respondent had deposited Rs. 1,800 on 11.11.1999 and was allotted connection No. 904-A.P.-123885 but the connection could not be energized as the site was not traceable and in this regard notices were sent to the respondent in January and July 2000 requiring him to approach the appellant for identification of the site and for installation of meter but the respondent did not respond to the notices and in the meanwhile notification was issued by the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) that new connections should be kept in obeyance and shall not be energized without the prior permission of CGWA. So much so, the respondent obtained no objection certificate from the CGWA and approached the appellant for energisation of the electricity connection which it refused to energise unless the respondent pay Rs. 1,39,637 towards development charges for extension of LV main and erection of three poles.

LET us assume that the appellant was justified in not energizing the electricity connection on the ground of the non-payment of development charges but cannot absolve from the charge of the deficiency in service by not energizing the same for more than 3 to 4 years as the application was made on 11.11.1999 and the connection No. 904-AP-123885 was also allotted, particularly in the light of the stand of the appellant that the connection could not be energized as the site was not traceable and in the meantime the CGWA came up with the aforesaid notification. As and when any consumer applies for new connection he expects its installation in a reasonable period after completion of commercial formalities or any other kind of formality. Any delay for any reason whatsoever amounts to deficiency in service which means "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

THE Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the delay was not on its part as it succeeded the DVB only in July 2002. We are afraid this contention does not hold water as the appellant had inherited all the assets and all the liabilities of its predecessors and, therefore, was required to take action on the pending applications seeking energisation of the electricity connection or any other matter relating to the electricity dispute of any kind whatsoever. Thus in our view, the non-energisation of the electricity connection without any basis within the reasonable period of receiving the application and after allotting the connection number amounts to deficiency in service. It appears that the District Forum has not directed the appellant to energise the electricity connection presumably on the plea of the appellant that unless development charges amounting to Rs. 1,39,637 were deposited the electricity connection cannot be energised as no objection certificate has already been issued by the CGWA and, therefore, has awarded only compensation as to the loss and injury suffered by the respondent.

SECTION 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an independent status to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act as it provides that the provision of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

WE do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.