MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GIAN WATI

BRIEFLY the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent Smt. Gianwati who is resident of Village Hassan Pur which is situate behind Patpar Ganj DTC Depot, applied for a domestic light connection on 21.2.86. She deposited a sum of Rs. 525/- as required. She had been running from pillar to post but to no purpose. She, accordingly, approached District Forum alleging deficiency in service. She prayed for direction for a domestic electric connection and compensation for amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and inconvenience suffered by her and members of her family. The plea of the Opposite Party was that the house of the Complainant was situated in an unelectrified pocket and she was, therefore, not eligible for electric connection. During the pendency of the proceedings before the D.F., a Local Commissioner was appointed on the application of the Complainant who visited the premises of the Complainant on 24.10.94 and reported that the area in which house of the Complainant was situate was electrified and even the adjacent house was having electric connection. He also reported the particulars of electric meters installed in the adjoining houses. The District Forum directed the Opposite Party that the Executive Engineer concerned may attend in person to explain the anomaly arising out of the fact that the adjoining houses were enjoying electric connection which had been denied to the Complainant. The Executive Engineer, however, failed to appear. It was, therefore, held that the Opposite Party had no acceptable reason to offer for denying the electric connection to the Complainant. In these circumstances the complaint was allowed and besides direction to provide electric connection to the Complainant DESU was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs. It is this order of the D.F.-I which has been assailed in this appeal. It is not disputed that the requisite formalities were completed by the respondent as far back as 28.12.88. On 29.6.93, the Complainant had also submitted a ''No Objection Certificate'' from DDA.

MR. S.L. Trisal, learned Counsel for the appellant contended:- (i) That the Complainant is a trespasser and the contruction of the house made by her is unauthorised. On the record we find that the Complainant entered into an agreement dated 13.5.78 with the original owner Jagmal whereby a piece of land measuring 200 sq. yards was purchased by her from out of Khasra No. 95/2 within Lal Dora of Village Hassanpur by General Power of Attorney of the same date. It has not been brought to our notice that someone else has so far raised claim with regard to the title to the said land prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that the house cannot be considered to be unauthorised construction. (ii) It was agreeed that the land including the house in question is under acquisition. With regard to this contention we may point out that nothing has been brought to our notice to show under which notification is Khasra No. 95/2 under acquisition. In any case, assuming that the land is under acquisition in our view, that is no reason to deny electric connection to the Complainant. If as a result of any such proceedings possession of the house is taken from the Complainant the electric connection will not stand in the way. (iii). It is next submitted that the compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- is very high. With regard to this contention, having regard to the facts of this case we are of the view that the Complainant made the application more than nine years back and so far she had been denied the normal facility of electric connection. We are unable to understand why the Complainant should have been denied electric connection on the specious plea that the house of the Complainant is situated in an unelectrified pocket, when according to the report of the Local Commissioner, the area is fully electrified and the adjoining houses had electric connections.

For these reasons we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties. Appeal dismissed.