North Delhi Power Limited vs BIHARI LAL

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''), against the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by District Forum (North); Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 337/2002 entitled Sh. Bihari Lal v. North Delhi Power Limited and Another.

THE brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The respondent Sh. Bihari Lal was a registered consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 1224026, installed at his residence with a sanctioned load of 1 KW. The appellant NDPL was sending the bills to the respondent on provisional basis. According to the respondent he received a bill of Rs. 5,346/- and he paid the above bill on 14.3.1998. The respondent further received a bill of Rs. 16,300/- for the month of September, 1999, which according to the respondent was arbitrary and false. The respondent approached the appellant NDPL and he was told that the meter is defective and is not working properly. The respondent requested the appellant NDPL either to rectify the defect of the meter or replace it with new meter. After several representations the appellant removed the meter in the month of April 2002, in the absence of the respondent. The respondent also challenged the exorbitant bill of Rs. 16,300/- and requested the appellant to revise the bill on actual consumption basis. Unable to get any relief from the appellant NDPL, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum with the request that the bill be revised and a new meter be installed. The respondent also claimed compensation for harassment and mental agony besides costs of litigation. In the meanwhile, the electric connection of the respondent was disconnected.

The appellant before the District Forum admitted that the provisional bills were being sent on average consumption but stated that the respondent has to pay the reconnection charges as per rules. The learned District Forum found that there was no justification for sending the bills on average basis and also that the appellant was not justified in disconnecting the electricity connection and remove the meter. Hence finding the appellant liable for deficiency in service, the learned District Forum directed the appellant to restore the electric connection and instal a proper electric meter in the premises of the respondent and to also issue a fresh bill on the basis of reading in the meter, as it existed at the time of its removal. The appellant was also directed not to charge reconnection charges and further awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent for inconvenience caused and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation

AGGRIEVED by the above order of the District Forum the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. The appeal was admitted on the limited question of non-payment of reconnection charges by the respondent. The above finding of the District Forum have been challenged on the ground that the District Forum has no authority to go beyond the policies of the appellant wherein it is mandatory that when the supply becomes dormant it is the duty of the consumer to complete the requested formalities and also pay the reconnection charges as per rules. It has thus been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Forum has acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in it and hence the order is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

WE have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the parties as well as the documents/material on record. Certain facts are admitted, it is not disputed that the respondent is the registered consumer of the appellant and electricity K. No. 1224026 was installed at his residence for domestic purposes with a sanctioned load of 1 KW. It is also not disputed that the electricity bills were sent by the appellant to the respondent on average basis and not on the basis of the meter reading and further that the bill of Rs. 16,300/- was sent for the month of September, 1999. The appellant could not show any ground as to why the bills were being sent on average basis and not on the basis of the reading of the meter. The appellant also could not explain as to why the electricity was disconnected without affording proper opportunity to the consumer/respondent. The learned District Forum has found the bill on average basis as arbitrary and has quashed it with the direction to revise the bill on the basis of the meter reading. The learned District Forum has also found the disconnection of the electricity as illegal and hence found the appellant deficient in service, on these two grounds the appellant was directed to restore the electric connection of the respondent and also not to charge reconnection charges. It is only this part of the order that is being challenged by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant have not challenged the finding of the District Forum that the NDPL was liable for deficiency in service and have only raised dispute regarding reconnection charges. Once a finding have been given by the District Forum regarding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the disconnection of electricity was found illegal and arbitrary, the District Forum was fully justified in directing the appellant not to charge reconnection charges from the respondent. The appellant could not show any ground on the basis of which the restoration of electricity connection without payment of reconnection charges can be said to be without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned District Forum is a well reasoned order and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs. The present appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.