DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs NARESH KUMAR

THIS appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 28.9.2001 passed by District Forum (North East), in Complaint Case No. 333/2000 - entitled Shri Naresh Kumar v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent Shri Naresh Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum averring therein that the premises No. 189/2-A, Main Durga Lane, Maujpur, Delhi was having two electric connections bearing No. YV 612 1408219 sanctioned in the name of his brother Shri Dinesh Kumar for domestic purpose and connection No. YV OOS 0053755 sanctioned in the name of Khazan Singh Chauhan, also sanctioned for domestic purpose. THE respondent had purchased the above said premises from Shri Khazan Singh Chauhan in the year 1978 and at the time of purchase misuse was being levied on the connection No. YV OOS 0053755 for the past 6-7 years. Despite repeated efforts of the respondent the misuse charges levied on the said connection were not removed. On the contrary an FAE bill for Rs. 5,470/- was raised against the said connection and, as such, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for quashing of the misuse charges levied in respect of connection No. OOS 0053755 together with refund of the excess amount paid along with interest. It was also prayed that the FAE bill raised in respect of the other connection bearing No. 612 140821 for Rs. 1,510/- be also quashed and compensation and cost be awarded to the respondent for the aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum stated in response to the averments made in the complaint that a joint inspection was carried out by the Enforcement Department of the appellant on 26.7.2000 and the half seals of the meters in question were found to be tampered with and the connected load was also found to be more than the sanctioned load. Accordingly provisional bills were raised on the basis of FAE and, as such, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the complaint, filed by the respondent, was liable to be dismissed with costs.

However, the learned District Forum on the basis of material on record directed the appellant to remove the misuse charges levied in respect of the connection bearing No. OOS 0053755 and also to quash the FAE bill raised in respect thereof. It was also directed that the excess amount deposited by the respondent, be refunded together with interest @ 9% p.a. if the amount was more than Rs. 2,000/- and if the amount was less than Rs. 2,000/- then the said amount could be adjusted in the future bills to be raised in respect of the meter in question. The learned District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- as cost in favour of the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant DVB has preferred the present appeal. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record and have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, at length. Vide present appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge only that part of the order which relates to the quashing of the FAE bill. So far as the directions contained in the impugned order relating to misuse charges in respect of connection bearing No. OOS 0053755 is concerned, the same directions remain unchallenged. As regards the directions relating to the FAE bill are concerned this Commission has already in the case entitled Delhi Vidyut Board v. D.N. Shukla & Ors., Appeal No. 3375/2000, held that a dispute relating to FAE is not a ''consumer dispute'' and the complainant in such cases is not a consumer, as defined under the Act. Thus, the same cannot be entertained and adjudicated upon by a redressal agency established under the Act.

THEREFORE, for the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid decision of this Commission dated 19.12.2002 (copy attached), the present appeal, filed by the appellant is partly allowed. However, the respondent is given the liberty to seek the redressal of his grievances relating to the FAE bill before any other Forum/Civil Court as he may be advised. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.