DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs REETA SHARMA

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 16th June, 2000, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1984/99 - entitled Smt. Reeta Sharma v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Reeta Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act, averring that she had applied for the installation of electricity connection in the premises constructed on a plot of land, measuring 180 sq. yards, belonging to her, situated at D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that the abovesaid plot was separately demarcated, having a separate entry and a separate boundary wall. It was further stated that the officials of the appellant, after verification sanctioned the electricity connection and the respondent also deposited the requisite amount, amounting to Rs. 18,650/-. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint filed by her, in nut-shell, was that though the respondent had completed all the formalities yet the appellant failed to install the electricity connection despite repeated requests, made to the concerned Authorities of the appellant. When the electricity connection, as requested by the respondent, was not installed by the appellant, the respondent filed the complaint with the prayer that the appellant be directed to install the electricity connection in the premises bearing No. D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. THE respondent also prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum as resisted by the appellant. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, while admitting the fact that the respondent had applied for electricity connection, it was stated that against the request of the respondent PC and TN were released to Zone No. 507 on 7.8.1997 but electricity connection could not be installed as the site in question could not be traced and the registered letters sent to the respondent, were received back with the remark that no such person was residing at the given address. It was also stated that on 24th October, 1998, the Zonal Engineer of Zone No. 507 visited the site, and found the size of the plot as 380 sq. yards whereas the respondent had declared the total area of the plot in question as 180 sq. yards. It was stated that the respondent was informed to deposit the Development Charges for the total area of the plot vide letter dated 12th November, 1998 but that letter was also received back undelivered with the same remarks, as a result of which the case was directed to be cancelled on 28th December, 1998. 5. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in the services on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to install the electricity connection in premises bearing No. D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The District Forum has also directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent for mental agony and harassment. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, under Section 15 of the Act. 7. 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. It is not in dispute that the respondent had applied for installation of electricity connection in the premises bearing No. D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and for that purpose had deposited the requisite fees and had also completed the required formalities. As per the case of the appellant, the electricity connection could not be installed because the site in question could not be traced and the letters addressed to the respondent were received back undelivered with the report that no such person was residing at the given address. The learned District Forum, in the impugned order has observed that the averments of the respondent that the portion of the plot belonging to her, measuring 180 sq. yards was separately demarcated, having a separate entry and at the instance of the officials of the appellant a separate boundary wall was constructed, have gone on record un-rebutted. It has also been observed that the plea taken by the respondent that the site in question could not be traced out is self-contradictory and the appellant also failed to produce the letters which were addressed to the respondent and were received back undelivered. On the basis of the above observations/findings the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order. The operative portion of the same reads as under : "We have heard the parties and have also gone through the records of his case. The complainant in her complaint as well as affidavit has stated that the portion of plot belonging to her and measuring 180 sq. yards is separately demarcated having a separate entry and at the instance of the officials of the Vidyut Board, a separate boundary wall was also constructed. This assertion of the complainant has not been refuted by the respondent on the one hand as stated that the field staff which visited the site on 17.3.1998 and 20.3.1998 could not locate the site, while on the other hand has stated that the Zonal Engineer who visited the site on 24.10.1998 found the size of the plot 380 sq. yards. Thus, the contention made by respondent that the premises where the electricity connection was to be installed could not be traced is not tenable. The respondent also failed to produce the registered letters, sent to the complainant which were received back with the remarks "no such person living at this address". Since the complainant had applied for electricity connection for a plot of land measuring 180 sq. yards which had been separately demarcated and boundary wall built the respondent was not justified in cancelling the cases or installation of electric connection. The respondent is thus, guilty of deficiency in service on this score. In view of the forgoing, the respondent is directed to install the electricity connection at the premises D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and also pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- for mental agony and harassment within a period of 30 days failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will be taken against him."

(underlined by us) 8. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order, being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed in limine.