DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA

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 the 13th January, 1999, passed by District Forum-V in Complaint Case No. 337/98 - entitled Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. D.E.S.U.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE respondent, Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that electricity connection bearing No. 351555, was installed at his residence for domestic purpose and he was paying the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection regularly. It was stated by him that in May, 1994, a highly inflated bill was received by him for Rs. 3,825/- indicating therein the reading as 1,360 units which was not correct and he represented to the appellant. On his representation, the abovesaid inflated bill was rectified and a revised bill for Rs. 1,072/- only was given to him. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, was that though, the defect, pointed out by him, was rectified in the bill in question but the correction was not made in the records of the appellant, as a result of which, subsequent bills, issued by the appellant, were also not corrected regarding which he made a written complaint to the appellant on 15.2.1995. It was stated that instead of taking any action on his written complaint, his electricity connection was disconnected by the appellant. THE respondent, in the complaint filed by him, had prayed that the appellant be directed to correct its record in respect of electricity connection No. 351555 after May, 1994 and the electricity connection of the respondent, be restored forthwith. THE respondent had also claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of litigation. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and the stand taken by the appellant was that as the respondent was not paying electricity bills, his electricity connection was disconnected due to failure in making the payment of bills regularly.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and on the above ground, has directed the appellant to properly maintain the records and to carry out the necessary rectification so that the respondent is not required to approach the Forum again. The learned District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/-.

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. It is not in dispute that the bill sent by the appellant to the respondent for electricity consumption in respect of electricity connection No. 351555 in May, 1994, was not correct because as against the actual consumption of 360 units, in the bill in question, the number of units mentioned was 1,360. On a representation made by the respondent, the appellant though rectified the error in the bill but did not care to rectify the same in its records as a result of which, the subsequent bills sent by the appellant to the respondent, also did not reflect the correct picture and no action was taken by the appellant even on written complaint of the respondent. Not only this, the respondent though deposited the amount demanded by the appellant under protest in July, 1996, yet, the electricity connection was restored after a lapse of more than six months in February, 1997. On the basis of the above facts, the learned District Forum has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and has passed the impugned order.

IN our opinion, in the given facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.