JAI KISHAN GUPTA vs Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board

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 the 11.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 3327/2001, entitled Shri Jai Kishan Gupta v. Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant, Shri Jai Kishan Gupta had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum and in complaint, filed by the appellant, the main grievance of the appellant was that in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 1004-PP-506, installed at his residence at 299, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, the respondent DVB had levied misuse charges without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. In the complaint, filed by the appellant it was prayed that the bills in question be quashed and the respondent DVB be directed to raise fresh bills at normal rates prescribed for domestic on the basis of consumption in the meter without levy of minuse/surcharge/late payment fees. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to refund excess amount charged from the appellant. THE appellant had also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- together with cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent DVB and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent DVB, it was stated that on 6.5.1998, the Meter Reader had reported that the domestic connection was being misused for commercial purposes. It was stated that on the basis of the above report of the Meter Reader the respondent started levy of misuse charges. It was further stated that the appellant submitted an application for the withdrawal of misuse charges and also deposited inspection fees. The concerned Inspector visited the site and reported that there was no misuse and, therefore, the misuse charges were withdrawn w.e.f. 26.12.2000. In the reply/written version, the stand taken by the respondent DVB was that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had not been able to make out a case of any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent DVB and on the basis of the above finding has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length who had appeared along with his representative, Shri S.B. Gupta and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The appellant and also his representative Shri S.B. Gupta vehemently contended that the respondent DVB had levied misuse charges without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant which is not only against the principles of natural justice and fair play but was also bad in law and, therefore, the misuse charges levied by the respondent DVB are liable to be withdrawn and the amount paid by the appellant is liable to be refunded. It is also stated by them that the appellant also deserved to be compensated suitably and also deserves to be awarded the costs of litigation. In our opinion, the above contentions being advanced by the appellant and his authorised representative are devoid of substance because it is observed in the impugned order that the complainant admitted before the District Forum that he had closed his restaurant in the premises in question in October/November, 2000. Not only this, the complainant as observed by the District Forum had also admitted that the application dated 7.11.2000 addressed to the AFO, DVB, District Pitampura was written by him. In the abovesaid application, it was stated by the appellant that he had stopped commercial activity at his residence w.e.f. 5.10.2000. The correctness of the above facts is not disputed even before us by the appellant. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum and the order being impugned in the present proceedings as a matter of fact 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 cost. Appeal dismissed.