Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking , Y.N. GUPTA vs Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking , Y.N. GUPTA

-THESE appeals were heard on 23rd September, 1992 when no one appeared on behalf of D.E.S.U. In the circumstances, an ex-parte order was passed by this Commission on the 16th November, 1992. Subsequently, on 14th December, 1992 Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate for respondent DESU in Appeal No. 45 of 1992 appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 filed an application stating that the date of hearing in these appeals was not intimated to his client, DESU and he learnt about the decision in these appeals only on the 27th November, 1992 when the orders of this Commission were communicated to his client. He contended that the non-appearance of his client on 23rd September, 1992 was bona fide and unintentional and therefore, prayed that the order of 16th November, 1992 be set aside and the matter be decided on merits. At the hearing held on 10th February, 1993 the Commission readily accepted the petition and recalled the order already passed in the appeals and directed that the appeals should be posted for fresh hearing. It may, however, be noted that at this hearing, the Counsel for the respondent Shri Y.N. Gupta averred that intimation about the date of hearing had been duly sent to DESU and that it was wrong to say that no notice was therefore, sent to the respondent DESU.

THE next date of hearing was on 15th March, 1993 when the hearing had to be postponed due to the indisposition of one of the members of the Commission. THE next hearing was on the 4th of May, 1993 but it was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for DESU. THE case was finally heard on 16.8.1993. At the outset the Counsel for DESU again requested for adjournment as the Senior Counsel was not reported to be well. THE Commission declined to grant any further adjournment. It was pointed out to the Counsel for DESU that his statement in his petition of 14th December, 1992 that the notice of the date of hearing on 23rd September, 1992 had not been received by him was not correct.

According to the Registry of this Commission, the notices in both the appeals were sent by Registered Post. According to the letters from Senior Superintendent Post Offices, New Delhi Central Division, notice in F.A. No. 30 of 1992 sent under Regd. letter No. 3803 of 14.8.1992 and addressed to the General Manager, DESU, Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi was delivered to the addresses on 18th of August, 1992. Likewise the notice sent by registered letter No. 2792 of 1.9.1992 in F.A. No. 45 of 1992 was delivered on 2nd of September, 1992.

OVERLOOKING the fact that the notices had been duly served on the DESU, the Counsel for DESU was given an opportunity to make his submissions in respect of the seven drawbacks of deficiency in service categorised in the order of 16th November, 1992 of this Commission, such as failure to prepare and serve the bills for electrical consumption at the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle, raising a heavy arrear bill, raising bills without actual meter reading, claiming arrears without details of the period to which the arrears pertained, serving a bill on the consumer on a Sunday and to expect him to pay over a lakh of rupees within four days under threat of disconnection thereafter, disconnecting power supply even before the last date specified for payment of the bill etc. Counsel for DESU could not explain as to how these did not constitute deficiencies in service on the part of his client D.E.S.U. In the result, the application of DESU is dismissed and the order passed by this Commission on 16th November, 1992 is reaffirmed. That order may be read as part of this order. It is unfortunate that the DESU had preferred an application for setting aside the order stating an incorrect ground that they had no notice of the hearing and had thereby secured a setting aside of the order of 16th November, 1992 passed against it. In this process it has further caused harassment and avoidable expense to the respondent-Shri Y.N. Gupta. We, therefore, direct that DESU will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent Shri Y.N. Gupta referred to above in addition to the relief granted in the order of 16th November, 1992. Ordered accordingly.