RENU KAPOOR vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (D), SHALIMAR BAGH

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 3.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 3370/2001 - entitled Smt. Renu Kapoor v. XEN (D), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Smt. Renu Kapoor, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant was the registered consumer of electricity connection bearing K. No. 146603/DX, installed at premises bearing No. AE-6, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It was stated that in the above said premises there were three other connections. It was further stated, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the officials of the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board carried out an inspection of the above said premises on 30.1.2001 wherein the connected load in respect of the above said electricity connection was found more than the sanctioned load and the seals were also found tampered with. It was stated that on the basis of the above said inspection a FAE bill was raised against the appellant and the appellant was forced to deposit the demand raised by the respondent DVB under the threat of disconnection and lodging of a First Information Report against the appellant. It was stated that after depositing part payment, the appellant filed the complaint for the refund of the deposited amount. THE grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by her, in nutshell, was that the meter was defective and no notice was issued to her before raising the FAE bill and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to her. Even the consumption pattern was also not considered by the authorities of the respondent DVB as alleged by the appellant in the complaint. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that on the basis of inspection carried out on 30.1.2001, FAE bill had been raised against the appellant as all the half seals of polyphase meter were found tampered with including both the rivets. It was stated that in the above said inspection meter terminal was also found burnt and the connected load was found 13.72 KW against the sanctioned load of 11 KW. According to the respondents, the above said inspection by the officials of the respondent was made in the presence of the appellant, who refused to sign the inspection report. It was stated that a provisional FAE bill was raised out of which a sum of Rs. 22,022/- had already been deposited by the appellant. It was stated that the FAE bill had been raised according to the tariff and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent DVB.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and on the basis of the above finding, has passed the order being impugned in the present proceedings.

NOT being satisfied with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard Mr. P.L. Tuli, attorney of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated, the learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and on the basis of the above finding has directed the respondents to refund the deposited amount with 9% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment along with Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. However, the respondents have been given the liberty to take action against the consumer after following the prescribed procedure laid down by the respondents and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The attorney of the appellant contended that the appellant is aggrieved with the later part of the impugned order whereby the respondents have been given the liberty to take action against the appellant. It is further contended by him that the learned District Forum, while passing the impugned order, has not considered the fact that the meter in question was defective/faulty. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. The same suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. As regards the grievance that the District Forum while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the facts that the meter in question was defective, the position is that if the respondents decide to take action against the appellant, the same would be taken only after following the prescribed procedure and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant in terms of the impugned order and the grievance that the meter was defective can be legally raised by the appellant before the concerned competent authority during the course of personal hearing which the respondent is under an obligation to give to the appellant in terms of the impugned order.

IN view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to costs. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.