DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Vs. B C JHULKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi dated 20.1.2001, passed in Complaint Case No.22/2000 - entitled Shri B. C. Jhulka V/s. Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), stating therein that the electric connection bearing No.6021448111 was installed at the premises of the respondent. The staff of the appellant-DVB conducted an inspection of the said premises on 25.9.1999 and found the half-seals of the meter tampered with and the connected load was also found to be 11.36 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. As such, a bill on FAE basis was raised for Rs.36,000/-. The respondent paid up the said bill under protest. However, it was stated by the respondent that the inspection report prepared by the staff of the appellant was incorrect as the appellant is having a sanctioned load of 6 KW and there is no overloading as alleged. Therefore, the inspection report of the appellant dated 25.9.1999 being based on incorrect facts is arbitrary and, as such, the said demand raised on the basis of the said report is liable to be quashed. The respondent had, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions against the appellant for refunding the amount paid, as well as, to award necessary compensation for the unwarranted action of the appellant causing mental agony and harassment to the respondent.

(3.) The defence of the appellant in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that as per the inspection jointly carried out by the Enforcement and MTD Deptt. of the appellant on 25.9.1999 the connected load at the premises of the respondent was found to be 11.036 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. Further, the half-seals of meter were also found to be tampered with. Since the respondent had been duly afforded an opportunity of being heard and his representation was also considered, and after analysing the consumption factor, the connected load was found to be much more than the consumption recorded in the meter, which was on the lower side. Thus, the bill was raised on FAE basis and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.