DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs RAM KISHAN SAINI

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 30.12.1999, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 1769/98 - entitled Shri Ram Kishan Saini v. Delhi Vidyut Board (M.C.D.) Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Ram Kishan Saini, had filed a complaint in the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that there was no supply of electricity at his residence from 2.00 p.m. on 22.9.1998 till 25.9.1998. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the electric supply to his residence could be restored only in the evening on 25th September, 1998 and that too after a number of complaints in writing and contacting the senior officers of the appellant. THE respondent, in the complaint, alleged ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant and claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of damages and further a sum of Rs. 211/- on account of expenses incurred by him for the purchase of candles and for making telephone calls. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was contested by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that on 22.9.1998, there was heavy rain fall in the area, which adversely affected the electric supply but the breakdown was attended with due promptitude and supply of electricity in the area including the residence of the respondent, was normalised the same day. It was contended that the appellant did not receive any complaint from the respondent regarding non-supply of electricity to his residence between 22.9.1998 to 25.9.1998.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- 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. On a perusal of the impugned order (copy on record), it is apparent that the learned District Forum has held that the respondent had adduced sufficient evidence by means of affidavits in support of his contention that there was no electricity in his house from 22.9.1998 to 25.9.1998. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that there was no electricity in the area on 22.9.1998 but the fault was removed on the same day. It has been noticed by the District Forum that the complaint of the respondent in the Register of the appellant has been recorded at S. No. 5910 but in the Records of the appellant, there is no entry to indicate as to when the same was attended to and the defect was rectified. The functioning of the appellant is not ''individual''. The same is ''Institutional''. As a matter of fact, the appellant has the trappings of a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and decidedly must have formulated some instructions/guidelines to be followed by its functionaries in the cases of power break down or for rectification of defects in the supply of electricity. The learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has stated that no such record is being maintained by the appellant which may indicate the date of rectification of the fault or the date on which the complaint lodged by the respondent was attended to by the functionaries of the appellant. In our opinion, it is difficult to believe the above version of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the alleged argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to impress us. In our opinion, in the given facts, the findings of the learned District Forum as recorded in the impugned order, suffer from no infirmity and the same call for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, therefore, is dismissed in limine being devoid of substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.