DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs MANOHAR LAL

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the learned District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent Shri Manohar Lal and directed the appellant-Delhi Vidyut Board to revise the bill of the respondent and also pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for deficiency in service and inconvenience caused and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the O.P. in the complaint case DVB has filed this appeal. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Manohar Lal is the consumer of electric connection No. K3194752 installed at his residence No. 14119, Shora Kothi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The respondent received a notice of misuse on 14.9.1995 and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 20/- as inspection fee if he has any objection to the levy of misuse charges. The respondent deposited Rs. 20/- on 6.11.1995 but no inspection was done by the appellant. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the appellant issued inflated bill of Rs. 15,920/- for the billing month of December, 1999 and the same has not been corrected in spite of repeated requests. Hence he filed complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the appellant to correct the bill and also for compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused. The respondent also claimed himself to be a senior citizen.

The appellant-DVB contested the claim of the respondent before the District Forum and stated that on 14.6.1995, the respondent was found using supply for hosiery work and thus misusing the supply for commercial purposes, even though the supply was for domestic use. Hence a notice was issued to the respondent on 14.9.1995. The appellant has also admitted that the respondent had deposited Rs. 20/- on 6.11.1995 towards inspection fee. However, the inspection could not done as the respondent did not mention as to for what purpose the amount has been deposited. The appellant denied that the bill for the month of December is an inflated bill. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence found that there is no reliable evidence that the respondent ever misused the electric supply for hosiery work. Moreover, the appellant failed to carry out the inspection in spite of deposit of the inspection fee. The learned District Forum found that the house of the complainant has been locked for a number of years and so there was no question of misuse. The appellant also could not justify the issue of bill of Rs. 15,920/- for the month of December, 1999. Hence finding the appellant guilty of deficiency in service, the impugned order was passed by the learned District Forum with the directions to revise the bill under Rule 22(d) of the Conditions of Supply of DESU or on minimum basis with no LPSC charges plus compensation for the inconvenience caused and cost of litigation.

WE have heard both the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the consumer of K. No. 3194752. The case of the respondent before the District Forum and before this Commission is that for the last several years, he has been living in the house of his son at 95, Harsh Vihar, Delhi and the house where the present connection is installed remained locked hence there was no question of misuse. The respondent also wrote letters to the appellant in this connection. Even from letter of the FSO addressed to the respondent dated 25.11.2000, it is apparent that the house was found locked by the field officials of the appellant which supports the contention of the respondent that the house remained locked. Hence there was no question of any misuse. Moreover, the appellant has failed to produce any evidence of misuse before the District Forum which would lead to the inference that the misuse bill was raised without any justification and without any evidence. There is another deficiency in service on the part of the appellant that no inspection was done even though the inspection fee of Rs. 20/- was deposited by the respondent and this fact has been admitted by the appellant. The explanation given by the appellant in this connection is far from satisfactory. Under these circumstances, the finding of the District Forum cannot be said to be unjustified. The appellant could not point any infirmity in the order of the learned District Forum which is a well reasoned order. WE do not find any ground to interfere or modify the order passed by the learned District Forum. The present appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal is without any force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.