North Delhi Power Limited vs P.C. SACHDEV

-THIS appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 17.7.2003 passed by District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 856/2002 entitled Sh. P.C. Sachdev v. North Delhi Power Limited.

THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was having an electric connection bearing No. CL-402-1391967-D471-PN installed at his premises. THE appellant had sent a bill dated June, 2002 for the amount of Rs. 3,760/- in which the meter reading was shown as 1370 whereas on checking the meter in question it was found by the respondent that the meter reading was 850 as on 3.8.2002. It was, therefore, the case of the respondent before the District Forum that an amount, in respect of 500 units, had been charged in excess from him and despite several representations to the concerned authorities, he was still being sent bills on the higher side, some of which had later on been corrected and modified. As such the respondent had prayed for necessary directions to the appellant for the correction of the impugned bills. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum had admitted the fact that there had been a mistake in noting the meter reading by the concerned meter reader. It was however stated that the net payable amount by the respondent upto December, 2002 had been revised to Rs. 2,310/-.

In view of the above facts the learned District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and as such allowed the complaint filed by the respondent vide impugned order.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the appellant/N.D.P.L. has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully gone through the documents/material on record and have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the quantum of relief granted to the respondent in the circumstances, vide impugned order is excessive, in view of the fact that the difference of amount wrongly calculated in the impugned bill was only Rs. 500/- whereas Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost in favour of the respondent. So far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, it is firstly clarified that the difference wrongly calculated by the appellant was not of Rs. 500/- only but of amount payable for 500 units of electricity consumed. Furthermore the harassment and agony undergone by the consumer on account of deficiency in service on the part of the service provider, is the determining factor for granting compensation and at times the amount involved in dispute loses relevance. In the instant case it is the grievance of the respondent that he had to run to and fro for seven months with his representation for correction of bills to the concerned officials of the appellant and when the same were unheeded he had to file a complaint before the District Forum for the correction of the impugned bills. Keeping in view the said circumstances of the case the relief granted to the respondent as compensation and costs appears to be appropriate.

ACCORDINGLY, the above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.