DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs PURAN MAL

THE appellant appears to be taking undue advantage of its own wrong or acts of omission and commission by preferring this appeal against order dated 18.10.2000 passed by District Forum-I, Delhi whereby it was directed to revise the electricity bill for the respondent by charging minimum guarantee charges in respect of enhanced/connected load and provide the electricity connection on receipt of the payment of revised bill and refund amount of Rs. 30,636/- with interest deposited by the respondent.

FACTS giving rise to this appeal is brief are, that on 18.1.1996 the respondent deposited amount of Rs. 9,936/- with the respondent and again on 19.1.1996 amount of Rs. 20,700/- for getting the electricity load enhanced from 0.25 KW to 16 KW under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme floated by the appellant. In spite of having accepted the requisite amount the appellant neither provided service line nor provided the meter of adequate capacity for the enhanced load. Repeated visits of the respondent for getting electricity connection and also for revising bills sent to him for the enhanced load without providing service line fell on deaf ears. Because of the cavalier and indifferent attitude of the appellant, the respondent decided to drop the idea of installing the machinery and getting enhanced load. However, on the contrary the stand of the appellant is that in June, 1996 the respondent declared the load of 20 KW for the purpose of industrial use and when the site was inspected it was found that there was no load existing on the site and subsequently notices were issued to the respondent but the same were received undelivered resulting in the cancellation of the request of the respondent for enhanced load.

As is apparent from the aforesaid facts that in spite of having charged the minimum guarantee charges for 20 KW the appellant not only failed to provide service line as well as meter for enhanced load but also failed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent. It is not understandable as to why the aforesaid services were not provided and why was the amount deposited by the respondent not refunded when on inspection of the premises no load was found existing on the site. Once they had cancelled the case of the respondent for enhanced load the appellant was not entitled to retain minimum guarantee charges particularly after 23.8.1996 when the premises was inspected and no load was found existing on the site, nor had they any reason to raise the electricity bills for the enhanced load for which no service line or meter was provided by the appellant.

THOUGH no plea was raised before the District Forum that the development cost is not refundable, the Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the office order providing the guidelines for processing cases of reduction of load/termination of agreement under voluntary disclosure scheme for commercial/industrial use. According to these guidelines the recovery of minimum charges in accordance to the tariff is applicable or declared connected load is to be made upto the date of reduction of load, development cost shall not be refunded. We do not find any substance in the contention of the Counsel that development cost is not refundable for the reasons that once the requisite deposit for enhancement of load is accepted, the consumer cannot be penalised on account of fault of the appellant in not providing service line or the requisite meter. If the provider of service is given premium for its inefficiency or indifferent attitude in dealing with consumers it will be giving free hand to the provider of service to act arbitrarily or capriciously. This is neither the object of the law providing protection to the consumer for receiving requisite and deficient service from the provider of service nor the intention.

IN view of the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit at all in the appeal and dismiss the same. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. It is directed that the FDR deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant after completing the necessary formalities. Appeal dismissed.