DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 21/2017
D.No.__________________ Dated: _________________<
IN THE MATTER OF:
ABHI RAM MISHRA S/o SH. JHARI LAL MISHRA,
ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE SMT. GAMBHIRA DEVI,
R/o FLAT No.56, 2nd FLOOR, POCKET-C-1,
SEC.-11, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.
(THROUGH ITS CEO),
HUDSON LINE, KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 04.01.2017
Date of decision: 03.04.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is a consumer and using the electricity connection for livelihood only bearing K. No. 60004595215 and the complainant has been paying electricity bills regularly and the complainant was shocked and surprised when the
CC No.21/2017 Page 1 of 4
complainant received false and fabricated bill of Rs.7,020/- in the month of July-2016. Thereafter, OP has shown deficiency in service by sending excessive inflated bills but the fact is that the complainant has been using the said electricity connection for domestic purpose only and the meter of the complainant is very fast also. The complainant further alleged that the sanctioned load was 2 KW and the complainant never used more than 2 KW and the complainant is being harassed by OP and OP is threatening to disconnect the electricity connection supply of the complainant and the complainant approached in Delhi Government Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Rohini but OP never appeared before Mediation Centre and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OP not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant, to quash the false and fabricated dues of Rs.7,020/- as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, pain and financial losses and has also sought cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the case of the complaint and filed written statement thereby submitting that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action against OP. OP further submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the
CC No.21/2017 Page 2 of 4
complaint as electric connection bearing CA No.60004595215 is registered in the name of Ms. Gambhira Devi and as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of the complainant. OP further submitted that bill of Rs.7,028/- issued in the month of July-2016 is neither false nor fabricated and the bill has been issued as per consumption recorded by the correct and accurate meter for 976 units for the period from 23.04.2016 to 27.05.2016 which relates to peak summer period.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OP and submitted that the complainant booked the electric meter in his wife name i.e. Ms. Gambhira Devi.
5. In order to prove his case the complainantfiled his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bill dated 24.06.2016 issued by OP and copy of order dated 29.12.2016 passed by Delhi Government Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Rohini, Delhi.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Santosh Choubey, Authorised Signatory of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per defence taken by OP in the written statement and also filed copy of Meter Replacement Form dated 24.06.2016 and copy of account statement dated 09.03.2017. OP also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as the OP in the light of evidence of the parties and documents placed on
CC No.21/2017 Page 3 of 4
record by the parties and submissions of parties.
8. It is not the case of the complainant that the meter was defective and was not giving proper reading. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to place on record electricity bills of the same period of summer peak seasons of early years. In the absence there of such bills we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent evidence and we find force in the arguments of counsel for OP that the electricity bill of Rs.7,028/- has been issued for consumption of 976 units of electricity and has been correctly issued. The meter of the complainant has been inspected and has been replaced.
9. After due consideration of the cases of the both the parties, we are of opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the present case filed by complaint is not maintainable being devoid of merits and the case is dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rdday of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.21/2017 Page 4 of 4
