M.K.JAIN vs 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 22.3.2002, passed by District Forum No. III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 219/2001 - entitled Shri M.K. Jain v. Delhi Vidyut Board & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. M.K. Jain, in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Raghubir Enterprises, A-201, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that electricity connection bearing No. K-013-1421778 with load of 7.5 KW had been sanctioned in his favour and he had been paying the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the above said electricity connection regularly to the respondent. It was stated that an illegal demand of Rs. 86,211.22 was raised by the respondent in respect of the above said electricity connection in November, 1994 regarding which a civil suit had been filed by the appellant which was pending adjudication. It was stated that the appellant had also applied for enhancement of sanctioned load but the same was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the appellant had been misusing the electricity connection and a Court case in respect of the same is pending. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to enhance the sanctioned load in his favour as applied by him. THE appellant had also claimed compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused to him. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by respondents and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents it was stated that as the matter was pending adjudication before the Civil Court, the appellant could not be heard before a redressal agency established under the Act. It was also stated that the appellant had rented out the premises which was being misused for which demand had been raised, which had not been paid by the appellant so far. It was also stated that as per the policy of the respondent when there was misuse and the case was pending adjudication before a Civil Court, sanction of an additional load cannot be accorded to. It was prayed by the respondent that the complaint filed by the appellant be rejected.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has rejected the complaint filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Sibbal, Attorney of the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Goel, Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated, the relief sought for by the appellant before the District Forum was that a direction be issued to the respondents to enhance the sanctioned load and to pay suitable compensation/damages to the appellant for illegal rejection of his request. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant had filed a civil suit assailing the demand raised by the respondents on account of misuse and subletting the premises. The above mentioned civil suit filed by the appellant is still pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The stand taken by the respondents before the District Forum was that unless the matter of misuse, which is sub judice, is decided, additional load, as per the policy of the respondents, cannot be sanctioned. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the relief sought for by the appellant in the suit and in the complaint filed by him are inter-dependent and cannot be granted in isolation. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum and the same, in our opinion, 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. Appeal dismissed.