LAWS(NCD)-2000-2-163

DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Vs. KAMLA DEVI

Decided On February 15, 2000
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Appellant
V/S
KAMLA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), is directed against order dated 22.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. I (North District), in Complaint Case No.2040/98 - entitled Smt. Kamla Devi V/s. Delhi Vidyut Board.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that respondent Smt. Kamla Devi had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent who is a tenant in property bearing No.480, ground floor, New Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-7, with the consent of the landlord, had applied for a fresh electricity connection in her name and had deposited the security amount, amounting to Rs.150/- and the other charges amounting to Rs.340/- on 19.5.1998. The respondent, had further, deposited an amount of Rs.35/- on 7.7.1998 for the aforesaid purpose. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint filed by her before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that despite making necessary deposits and completing all other formalities, electricity connection was not being released in her favour by the appellant. It was prayed that the appellant, Delhi Vidyut Board, be directed to release the connection and be also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony. The respondent had also claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of litigation expenses.

(3.) The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was contested by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant was that since a civil suit on the same facts was pending, the complaint filed by the respondent, was not maintainable. On merits, it was stated that the connection could not be given to the respondent because there was a disconnection of electricity in the same premises and the owner of the premises had complained to the appellant that new connection should not be given without the recovery of dues.