DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs Devender Singh

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 19.8.2000, passed by District Forum North-East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 119/98-entitled Sh. Devender Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that he was the consumer of electricity connection No. 515-1765620-IR, installed at Khasra Nos. 628/468 to 480 at village Sultanpur Majra, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that on the basis of an inspection conducted on 19.5.1997, the supply of the complainant was disconnected on the ground of direct theft of electricity. THE grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was that he was not involved in the alleged theft of electricity as in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the respondent in respect of the abovesaid incident, the name of the accused mentioned was not that of the respondent but of one Sh. Sandeep with whom he had no connection. THE other grievance of the respondent in the complaint was that before removing his meter neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum that on 19.5.1998 an inspection was conducted by the inspecting team of the appellant and a First Information Report (FIR) for theft of electricity was lodged in respect of the electricity connection of the respondent and on the basis of direct theft of electricity, the electricity connection of the respondent was disconnected.

The learned District Forum in the impugned order has observed that the supply of the respondent as disconnected on the basis of inspection report dated 19.5.1998 which was not made available to the respondent for reasons best known to the appellant. The learned District Forum has also observed at the First Information Report (FIR) in question in respect of the alleged theft of electricity had been lodged against one Sh. Sandeep and not against the respondent. The third point noticed by the learned District Forum was that the respondent had not brought any evidence on record to show that before disconnection of electricity any opportunity was given to the respondent to explain his position. On the basis of the above facts the learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and has passed the impugned order.

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. During the course of arguments, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on 19.5.1998, the inspecting team of the appellant had carried out an inspection of the premises in question and noticed direct theft of electricity in respect of which a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the police. It was stated by him that as the case was of direct theft of electricity no prior notice before disconnecting the electricity connection was required to be given to the respondent. As per the contention, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the ground for disconnection of electricity was direct theft of electricity. It is not in dispute that the First Information Report (FIR), lodged in the matter is not against the respondent but the same is against one Sh. Sandeep. The learned District Forum in the impugned order has observed that the respondent has no concern with said Sh. Sandeep. We, also with a view to satisfy ourselves, have specifically asked the learned Counsel for the appellant that in case if the alleged direct theft of electricity was by the respondent then why the First Information Report (FIR) with regard to the alleged commission of the offence of theft was not lodged against the respondent and was lodged against one Sh. Sandeep. We also asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to indicate the nexus between the respondent and said Sh. Sandeep insofar as the alleged commission of offence of theft of electricity is concerned resulting in disconnection of electricity connection. The learned Counsel for the appellant, despite our specific query, failed to satisfy us on the above point.

NO other point was pressed or urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the case of the appellant in the present appeal. In view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, in our opinion, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.