DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs K.K.NARULA

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''), against order dated 13.4.2000 passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 174/1999 entitled Sh. K.K. Narula v. Delhi Vidyut Board. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent Sh. K.K. Narula and directed the appellant to remove the misuse charges from 19.1.1995 and revise the bill of the respondent without any misuse surcharges and late payment. THE learned District Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the appellant, Delhi Vidyut Board has filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The respondent Sh. K.K. Narula is the consumer of the appellant and electric connection No. 601-1464989/R 403 is installed at his premises. The appellant sent a bill of electricity dues in September, 1998 for Rs. 18,193,38/- that bill included misuse charges also which were levied on the basis of the report of the Meter Reader dated 10.1.1995. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the levy of misuse charges without issuing any notice to the respondent and without giving any opportunity of hearing. The respondent also challenged the levy of misuse six months prior to the alleged report of Meter Reader dated 19.1.1995. The appellant DVB cotested the claim of the respondent on the ground that as per report of the Meter Reader the domestic connection was found being used in the Chemist shop. A notice is also alleged to have been sent to the consumer on 6.7.1995 and when no reply was filed by the consumer, misuse charges were levied six months prior to the report of the Meter Reader. It also appears that the respondent had two connections, one was for domestic use and the other was for commercial use in the shop. Connection No. 146498 was being used for domestic purpose while another connection No. 150467 was being used at the shop. The second connection was started on 6.10.1996 and hence misuse charges were removed from 6.10.1996. The appellant''s case before the District Forum was that the consumer was liable to pay the misuse charges from 19.1.1995 to 6.10.1996 when the misuse charges were recovered.

The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that no notice was sent by the appellant DVB before levying the misuse charges and the appellant has failed to prove that any notice was being sent. The notice should have been sent by registered post which has not been done and no other evidence has been filed by the appellant DVB to support the fact of issue of notice to the consumer. In the absence of any evidence the learned District Forum relied on the affidavit of the respondent that no notice was received by him. It was on this ground that the learned District Forum ordered for the removal of misuse charges from 19.1.1995 and held the appellant liable for deficiency in service.

WE have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and have also carefully gone through the impugned order of the District Forum. Misuse charges had been levied on the basis of the report of the Meter Reader dated 19.1.1995. However, neither the report was produced before the District Forum nor any affidavit of the Meter Reader had been filed to prove the misuse. According to the appellant, a notice was sent before levying the misuse charges. However, no evidence had been filed to prove that fact. The learned District Forum held that no notice appears to have been sent before levying the misuse charges. It was necessary for the appellant to send a notice before levying misuse charges so as to give an opportunity to the consumer to present his version. Normally, the notice should have been sent per registered post. However, the appellant in this case has failed to prove before the District Forum that any notice was sent to the consumer before levying misuse charges. Hence the learned District Forum was justified in quashing the misuse charges, which were levied simply on the basis of the report of the Meter Reader without any inquiry and without any notice to the consumer. It is also relevant to note in this connection that the appellant itself has removed the misuse charges from 6.10.1986 when it was found that connection No. 1464989 was being used for domestic purpose only. In view of the position explained above we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which is a well reasoned. There is no merit in the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings. The present appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.