DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs KAMLA DEVI

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 22.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. I (North District), in Complaint Case No. 2040/98 - entitled Smt. Kamla Devi v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that respondent Smt. Kamla Devi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent who is a tenant in property bearing No. 480, ground floor, New Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-7, with the consent of the landlord, had applied for a fresh electricity connection in her name and had deposited the security amount, amounting to Rs. 150/- and the other charges amounting to Rs. 340/- on 19.5.1998. THE respondent, had further, deposited an amount of Rs. 35/- on 7.7.1998 for the aforesaid purpose. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint filed by her before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that despite making necessary deposits and completing all other formalities, electricity connection was not being released in her favour by the appellant. It was prayed that the appellant, Delhi Vidyut Board, be directed to release the connection and be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony. THE respondent had also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of litigation expenses. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was contested by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant was that since a civil suit on the same facts was pending, the complaint filed by the respondent, was not maintainable. On merits, it was stated that the connection could not be given to the respondent because there was a disconnection of electricity in the same premises and the owner of the premises had complained to the appellant that new connection should not be given without the recovery of dues.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and has directed that a fresh connection, in the name of the respondent, be issued and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- be paid by the appellant to the respondent as compensation for the alleged deficiency in service. The learned District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent by way of litigation expenses.

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, the learned Counsel for the appellant advanced the same pleas in support of the case of the appellant, which were advanced on behalf of the appellant before the learned District Forum. As regards the plea regarding the pendency of a civil suit, the position is that the learned District Forum has held that the abovesaid civil suit, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, has already been dismissed as withdrawn on 30.9.1999 and, therefore, the above plea, taken by the appellant, has become irrelevant. As regards the second plea with regard to the complaint of the owner of the premises, the position is that it has been held by the learned District Forum that a no objection certificate has already been issued by the landlord for grant of a fresh connection in the name of the respondent in the same premises. The correctness of both the above mentioned facts i.e. withdrawal of civil suit and grant of no objection certificate by the landlord is not disputed at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the presence of the above facts, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum, being impugned in the present proceedings. 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 and the same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.