NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Venkateswara Solvent Extractions Pvt

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 18th December, 2001, passed by District Forum (North -West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 3260/2001, entitled Shri Abhinav Kochar v. Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Sh. Abhinav Kochar, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had purchased a portion of property, bearing No. G -25, Kusumdeep Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi for the purpose of running a business of travel agency. It was stated that the possession of the said premises was taken over by the appellant on 25.1.1993 from M/s. T.M. Apartments. It was stated that the appellant on 5.2.1996 had applied to respondent No. 1 for electricity connection and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 537/ - for the above said purpose. It was also stated that the appellant had also submitted all the relevant documents. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nut -shell was that electricity connection, despite the fact that he had made necessary deposit and had completed all the formalities, had not been provided to him. In the complaint filed by the appellant it was payed that the respondent be directed to instal the electricity connection. The appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - for business losses and another sum of Rs. 20,000/ - for mental agony besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant in District Forum was resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent is a preliminary objection was taken stating that the appellant was not a consumer as he had not been provided with any electricity connection and simply by making a deposit one does not become a consumer. On merits it was stated that as the area was unelectrified, the said connection to the appellant could not be granted and the appellant was informed accordingly about the same. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and on the basis of the above findings has passed the order being impugned in the present proceedings.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant had applied for an electricity connection in premises bearing No. G -25, Kusumdeep Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi and had deposited a sum of Rs. 537/ - with the respondents for the above said purpose on 15.2.1996. The reason for not granting electricity connection, as stated by the respondent in the reply/written version, was that as the area in question was an unelectrified area, therefore, the said electricity connection could not be given to the appellant. The correctness of the above fact is not disputed even before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned District Forum has directed the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board to refund the amount deposited by the appellant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The same is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, as a matter of fact, in the given facts, 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 and the same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine, with no orders as to costs.