VIMLA GOYAL Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER 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 28.5.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Mahrana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.2749/2000 entitled Smt. Vimla Goyal V/s. The Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Smt. Vimla Goyal had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant was a tenant in shop No.2. Plot No.1, Block No.51, Opp. Khalsa College Old Building. Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant applied for the supply of electricity connection for commercial purpose vide her application No.237072 in January, 2000. It was stated that necessary inspection was carried out and inspection report was filed on 3.2.2000 and thereafter the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.10,975/- on 9.2.2000 towards security and other charges. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by her, before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that despite completing all the formalities electricity connection had not been provided to the appellant. It was prayed in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the respondent be directed to provide electricity connection forthwith. The appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment. She had also claimed the cost of litigation.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that the appellant had applied for the connection of 4 KW load and the case for the execution was released but the connection could not be given as there were heavy dues against the existing connection. It was stated that the appellant was directed to submit photocopies of the paid bills which was not done by the appellant. It was stated photocopies of the paid bills which was not done by the appellant herself was responsible for the delay and the complaint, filed by the appellant, deserved to be dismissed.