JANAK DULARI 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 4.12.2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.353/2002 entitled Smt. Janak Dulari V/s. Delhi Vidyut Board.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Smt. Janak Dulari had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant was the owner of House No. F-160, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi where she was residing and was also running a restaurant. It was stated that in the above said premises four electricity connections with separate meters had been installed. It was stated that the four meters, installed in the above said premises, were running fast and the appellant on noticing the above fact submitted an application along with requisite fees but despite written requests no one visited the premises of the appellant to check and change the defective meters. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that directions be issued to the respondent for replacing the defective meters by new meters and to calculate the consumption of electricity in respect of those meters on average basis. It was also prayed that the respondent DVB be also directed to rectify the bills and not to disconnect the above said electricity connections. The appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, before the District Forum while admitting the installation of four meters in the above said premises it was stated that after the deposit of Rs.50/-, the requisite fees, by the appellant, the meters in question were got checked and it was noticed that the meters were working almost normally and out of four meters one meter was found slow instead of being fast as alleged. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.