M K JAIN Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

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 22.3.2002, passed by District Forum No. III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.219/2001 - entitled Shri M. K. Jain V/s. Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. M. K. Jain, in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Raghubir Enterprises, A-201, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that electricity connection bearing No. K-013-1421778 with load of 7.5 KW had been sanctioned in his favour and he had been paying the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the above said electricity connection regularly to the respondent. It was stated that an illegal demand of Rs.86,211.22 was raised by the respondent in respect of the above said electricity connection in November, 1994 regarding which a civil suit had been filed by the appellant which was pending adjudication. It was stated that the appellant had also applied for enhancement of sanctioned load but the same was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the appellant had been misusing the electricity connection and a Court case in respect of the same is pending. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to enhance the sanctioned load in his favour as applied by him. The appellant had also claimed compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused to him.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by respondents and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents it was stated that as the matter was pending adjudication before the Civil Court, the appellant could not be heard before a redressal agency established under the Act. It was also stated that the appellant had rented out the premises which was being misused for which demand had been raised, which had not been paid by the appellant so far. It was also stated that as per the policy of the respondent when there was misuse and the case was pending adjudication before a Civil Court, sanction of an additional load cannot be accorded to. It was prayed by the respondent that the complaint filed by the appellant be rejected.