SURENDRE M. MITTAL vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Sh. S.M. Mittal against the order dated 13.3.2000 passed by the District Forum (New Delhi) in Complaint No. 1126/2000 by the impugned order, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground that no deficiency in service has been proved against the respondent NDMC. THE District Forum also held that the disconnection of the supply of the appellant cannot be treated as deficiency in service as the disconnection was done due to non-payment of bills of electric consumption on the part of the appellant.

THE facts relevant for this appeal are: That the appellant is a practising Advocate and is having a lawyers chamber No. 351 in Delhi High Court since 1980. THE appellant was having an electric connection of commercial type. Subsequently it was changed to light commercial category by the respondent for the reasons best known to the respondent. THE respondent NDMC started billing the appellant for minimum amount which was 20 times higher than the actual consumption. THE appellant asserted that he uses only a fan and a tube-light in the chamber only for three hours on working days and switches off the light when he is not present in the chamber and his actual consumption is around five units per month. The appellant also submitted that he approached the respondent to reduce his load from 1.4 kw to 0.5 kw but in spite of his several requests the respondent failed to reduce the load. The appellant also asserted that the bills were usually dropped in his chamber in his absence. It was further submitted that on 17.8.2000 when the appellant was sitting in his chamber in the afternoon with his clients his supply was disconnected and the meter removed and since then the appellant is without electricity due to illegal disconnection by the respondent.

The respondent (O.P. in the original complaint) in its reply stated that the appellant was sanctioned electric connection under Light Commercial Category and bill for minimum charges was raised at commercial tariff from time-to-time. The appellant is liable to make the payments accordingly, however, the appellant has failed to deposit the bills on electric consumption. It was further submitted that no letters of the appellant were received regarding reduction of load. It was further stated that the appellant was to apply for reduction of load on the prescribed application form along with certain documents, which the appellant has failed to do. The respondent further asserted that the appellant (complainant in original case) has not made any payment till date since 1989. It was also asserted that two demand notices dated 9.3.1992 and 18.6.1999 were issued to the appellant before the disconnection of the supply of electricity. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record the learned District Forum found that the appellant himself was a defaulter in payment of electricity bills for the last more than 10 years and the electric supply was disconnected after giving due notices to the appellant, hence, the respondent is justified in disconnecting the supply for non-payment and no deficiency in service is proved against the respondent. Accordingly the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed by Sh. S.M. Mittal.

WE have heard both the parties and have considered the entire evidence on record. It is not disputed that the appellant is a consumer of electricity being supplied by the respondent and was having an electric connection of Light Commercial Category. The respondent has been raising the bills on minimum basis as per the sanctioned load. However, the appellant failed to make the payment of any bills since 1989. He was provided opportunity by the learned District Forum to produce even a single receipt of payments but the appellant failed to produce any receipt. The appellant also failed to produce any evidence that he has deposited the bills of consumption raised by the respondent in the last more than 10 years. The respondent has also given notice to the consumer before disconnection and when the appellant failed to deposit the electricity dues, the supply was disconnected. The appellant cannot claim deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. unless he is making payments of the consumption bills. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to prove that he made payments of the bills for the last more than 10 years. Hence he himself was a defaulter and the respondent was justified in disconnecting the supply of the appellant due to non-payment of bills. WE agree with the findings of the learned District Forum that no deficiency in service is proved against the respondent and the appellant is not entitled for any relief. Still another contention of the appellant this that his load was not reduced in spite of several letters and representations. However, there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant has completed required formalities for reduction of load simply by making a note on the back of the bill cannot be treated as a proper application for reduction of load. Since the appellant was using the supply in the chamber, the respondent was raising the bills for commercial use in the light commercial category, which also cannot be treated as deficiency in service. It is also relevant to note that the respondent according to the rules, has right to raise the bill for the minimum amount of the sanctioned load even if the consumption is NIL. Thus on these counts also no deficiency in service is proved against the respondent. The appellant has failed to point out any other deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. There appears no infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum (New Delhi).

THERE appears no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.