DAUJI RAM Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation awarded vide impugned order dated 30.12.1999, passed by the District Forum, on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not restoring the electricity connection for 18 long months the appellant has directed the appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the electricity connection was disconnected in May, 1992 for non -payment of the bill raised by the respondent which later on was found to be highly excessive and illegally raised. However, it was after about 18 months i.e., in October, 1993 the electricity connection was restored on payment of the revised bill. Circumstances of raising revised bill itself shows the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

(3.) APART from approaching the District Forum for compensation the appellant was also forced to approach Civil Court, where the proceedings are still pending. In our view, the loss or injury suffered by the appellant for 18 long months for the wrong doing of the respondent was immense as electricity is such an essential necessity that life is difficult without it. Instead of redressing the grievance of the appellant well in time when he raised objections that the bill raised by the respondent was highly excessive and not as per consumption, the respondent disconnected the electricity connection and thereby forcing the appellant to take the help of the lawyers and Courts.