SAROJ KAUSHIK Vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VII, Delhi, in C-831/2009 in the matter of Ms. Saroj Kaushik versus BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., disposing off the complaint with the direction that the bills raised by the OPs from time to time are quashed subject to the payment of Rs. 32,464.82 by the complainant within 30 days, Smt. Saroj Kaushik, resident of Delhi has preferred an appeal before this Commission, for short appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, against the BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., hereinafter referred to as respondents, alleging that the orders so passed are contrary to the facts and the law and praying for the relief as prayed for before the District Forum, indicated hereinafter:-

(2.) The complainant/appellant the owner of the property bearing no. RZ-323, Prem Nagar, G-Block, Najafgarh, New Delhi, had applied for an electricity connection on 31.01.1996, depositing a sum of Rs. 3817/-. Nobody was in occupation of that premises. Despite that according to the complainant Op/respondents raised the bill of Rs. 80,570/- towards the electricity charges. After this, the complainant again received the bills of Rs. 27,280/-, Rs. 60,550/- and Rs. 5880/- in July, 2009. It is also stated that the OP sent an another bill of Rs. 16,690/-. The complainant has made specific averment that the property in question always remained unoccupied and therefore all these bills are unlawful and liable to be quashed. It is alleged that the OP is grossly deficient in providing services. The complainant prayed the Forum to declare all the impugned electricity bills void and ineffective and also prayed for a direction to the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. The OPs/respondents were approached to rectify the error and withdraw the bill. That not having been done, the complainant/appellant approached the ld. District Forum by way of a complaint, which complaint having not been accepted in terms of the prayer made, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the District Forum failed to appreciate that there is no meter installed in the premises nor anyone was occupying the said premises in which case there could not have been any electricity bill with respect to the premises. Secondly no service was rendered and therefore they cannot be made to pay the amount contained in the bills raised from time to time. Finally the amount as fixed by the District Forum keeping in view the settlement arrived at before the Public Grievance Commission, where also the complainant had approached, had no basis nor any rational.

(3.) In these circumstances the appellant has approached this Commission by way of an appeal for the redressal of her grievances.