RAJENDRA KUMAR vs B.S.E.S., Y.P.L. Office

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 418/2010, dismissing the appeal against the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint case no. 245 / 2009.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant / petitioner Rajendra Kumar, in his complaint dated 10.09.2009, filed before the District Forum stated that he was consumer of electricity connection no. 1251V1170709. He registered complaint no. 343 in electricity office, BSES Gokulpuri on 1.07.2009, in response to which an employee of the Opposite Party / respondent came to him and stated that there was fault in the cable. The said employee advised the complainant to give an application for the change of the cable. The complainant is stated to have submitted two different applications to the office of the OP on 10.07.2009 and 18.07.09, but the cable was not changed. Later on, the complainant registered a complaint vide diary no. 212 dated 7.08.2009 and he visited the office of the OP many times, but they did not respond to his complaint. They, however, told him that another complaint no. 20276 had already been lodged with them and they had already placed a new cable and supplied electricity through that cable on 13.08.2009. On 13.08.2009 itself, two line-men came to that area and repaired the street electricity, but they did not repair the cable of the complainant. The complainant made several attempts to contact the office of the OP thereafter, but did not meet with any success. Through his complaint, he demanded compensation of Rs.95,000/- for his mental harassment and physical suffering. The District Forum vide their order passed on 27.04.2010, observed that the cable line had already been installed regarding electricity connection of the complainant and his connection had been restored just after 15 days of filing of the complaint. However, the District Forum allowed him a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for his physical and mental harassment along with Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant made an appeal against this order before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed, upholding the order of the District Forum. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. At the time of hearing before us, the petitioner / complainant argued his case in person and stated that he has lodged his complaint first on 1.07.2009 and thereafter, on many occasions and finally, the complaint was registered on 07.08.2009. However, the OP had not responded to his complaints, although he had contacted their office many times. He further stated that the enforcement team from the OP raided his house and filed a case of theft against him. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that following the complaint filed by the complainant, a lineman from the respondent company had visited the complainant and asked him to file an application, which was filed on 10.07.2009. After that, the said cable was repaired and electricity connection was also restored. The OP had not filed any case against the petitioner for theft etc. There was no deficiency on the part of the OP on any ground. Learned counsel also invited our attention to an order passed by the Lok Adalat under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee on 12.09.2009, according to which, the dispute regarding payment of certain amount by the complainant to the respondent was settled and it was ordered that a total sum of Rs.22,000/- shall be paid by the complainant to the respondent. Besides that, there was no other litigation pending between the parties.

WE have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments before us. The facts of the case make it clear that when complaint was filed by the petitioner, there was immediate response from the respondent / OP and one lineman from the office of the OP visited the complainant and advised him to file an application for change in cable. The said cable was also changed within a few days and the electric connection of the complainant was restored. However, the District Forum after analysing the facts of the case, decided to award compensation of Rs.2,000/- for harassment to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. The said order was confirmed by the State Commission in appeal. We do not find any legal infirmity or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum and hence the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.