DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs B.C.JHULKA

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi dated 20.1.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 22/2000 - entitled Shri B.C. Jhulka v. Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), stating therein that the electric connection bearing No. 6021448111 was installed at the premises of the respondent. THE staff of the appellant-DVB conducted an inspection of the said premises on 25.9.1999 and found the half-seals of the meter tampered with and the connected load was also found to be 11.36 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. As such, a bill on FAE basis was raised for Rs. 36,000/-. THE respondent paid up the said bill under protest. However, it was stated by the respondent that the inspection report prepared by the staff of the appellant was incorrect as the appellant is having a sanctioned load of 6 KW and there is no overloading as alleged. THErefore, the inspection report of the appellant dated 25.9.1999 being based on incorrect facts is arbitrary and, as such, the said demand raised on the basis of the said report is liable to be quashed. THE respondent had, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions against the appellant for refunding the amount paid, as well as, to award necessary compensation for the unwarranted action of the appellant causing mental agony and harassment to the respondent. The defence of the appellant in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that as per the inspection jointly carried out by the Enforcement and MTD Deptt. of the appellant on 25.9.1999 the connected load at the premises of the respondent was found to be 11.036 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. Further, the half-seals of meter were also found to be tampered with. Since the respondent had been duly afforded an opportunity of being heard and his representation was also considered, and after analysing the consumption factor, the connected load was found to be much more than the consumption recorded in the meter, which was on the lower side. Thus, the bill was raised on FAE basis and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

However, on the basis of the material on record, the learned District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and, as such, directed that FAE bill raised by the appellant, be revised on the basis of actual consumption, as recorded in the meter, without charging any delayed payment charges and after adjusting the amount already paid by the respondent. The learned District Forum also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as the records of the concerned District Forum pertaining to this case. We have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. First and foremost it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the present appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and, as such, is not maintainable under the Act. However, the appellant in its application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has stated that though the impugned order is dated 20.1.2001, the certified copy of the same was received by the appellant only on 6.2.2001 and the present appeal has been filed on 8.3.2001 and, as such, there is a delay of only one day on account of the fact that the matter had to be processed at various levels and departments of the appellant, before a decision to file the appeal could be communicated to the concerned Advocate of the appellant. Since the delay is of one day only, the same is hereby condoned in the given facts.

ON the merits of the case, however, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the dispute raised by the respondent in the complaint filed before the District Forum could not have been entertained by the District Forum under the Act as the same is not a ''consumer dispute'' since the same relates to the raising of bill in respect of fraudulent abstraction of electricity. So far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, this Commission has already in the case entitled Delhi Vidyut Board v. D.N. Shukla & Ors., Appeal No. 3375/2000, held that the dispute relating to FAE is not a ''Consumer Dispute'' and the complainant in such cases is not a consumer, as defined under the Act. Thus the same cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon by a Redressal Agency established under the Act. Therefore, for the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid decision of this Commission dated 19.12.2002 (copy attached), the present appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is hereby set aside. However, the respondent is given the liberty to seek the redressal of his grievances before any other Forum/Civil Court as he may be advised. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.