PREM LATA vs NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED

THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.1.2014, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 452 of 2012, North Delhi Power Ltd. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Premlata, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North Delhi), in allowing execution petition in case No. 108 of 2009 was modified. Brief facts of the case are that there was an electricity connection, bearing K. No. 33105031646, installed in the year 2007 at the premises in question, in the name of M/s. R.K. Enterprises. The said premises was purchased by the present petitioner/complainant. On 28.3.2008, the said electric connection was disconnected, due to non -payment of outstanding dues, but the petitioner/complainant allegedly restored the electric connection illegally. This fact came to the notice of the respondent/opposite party, when their officers visited the premises in question to ascertain the meter reading. It has been stated that they were not allowed to enter the premises for removing the disconnected meter. The respondent/opposite party served a notice under Section 163 of the Electricity Act upon the complainant/petitioner to allow them to inspect the premises and remove the meter. However, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the respondent/opposite party be ordered to supply proper electrical/duplicate bill to the consumer cycle -wise, based on the actual consumption of the electricity.

DURING the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, there was settlement between the parties and on that basis, the complaint was disposed of by the District Forum on 29.5.2009. An extract from the order dated 29.5.2009 is as follows: Settlement has been arrived at between parties, according to which OP had stated that after removal of meter bearing K. No. 33105031646 and on taking final reading of the meter, bill will be raised without any amount of illegal restoration, if any, within a week and they shall provide new connection in the name of complainant within 3 days after deposition of bill amount raised by them and on completion of commercial formalities.

Counsel for complainant agrees to the terms of settlement offered by OP and states that he has no other grievances and withdraws his complaint.

Accordingly, OPs are hereby directed to raise bill in respect of above K. No. as per their settlement within a week and shall also abide by their other part of statement made in the margin of this order sheet.

The complaint accordingly stands disposed of being fully satisfied and withdrawn by the complainant. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties as per law and file be consigned to record room.

The complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for enforcement of order dated 29.5.2009. The respondent/opposite party submitted, before the District Forum, that they had acted as per the letter and spirit of the settlement, as they had removed the meter and took the final reading at the time of removal and had raised the final bill of Rs. 37,908 and handed over the same to the complainant under receipt along with complete details. The complainant had also paid the said amount without any protest and anew connection had been provided in the name of the complainant as per the settlement. However, the complainant raised the objection in execution petition that ''proper'' bill had not been raised by the department. The complainant stated that only a manual bill had been given, whereas a computerized bill should have been sent. The District Forum, vide their order dated 22.5.2012, directed the opposite party to raise a "bill", inconformity with formal and substantial requirement of "bill", as mandated by Regulation 12 of DERC (Performance Standards - -Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002. The District Forum also directed that the Chief Executive Officer of the opposite party should personally appear before them on the next date of hearing. On an appeal, filed before the State Commission, the said order was modified and it was stated that there was no need for the Chief Executive Officer to appear in person before the District Forum. It was observed that the manual bill for Rs. 37,908 had already been submitted by the department. The State Commission directed the District Forum to proceed further as per law in the execution case, on the basis of fresh manually prepared "bill" filed before them. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. It has been stated in the petition that in pursuance of order dated 21.1.2014, the District Forum had disposed of the execution application on 25.2.2014.

AT the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite party had not provided proper "bill" to them, which should have been a computerized bill. They had only given them a handwritten bill and no details had been provided in the said bill. The order of the State Commission should, therefore, be set aside and the order of the District Forum should be upheld.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. In pursuance of the settlement between the parties, the opposite party was supposed to remove the previous meter, take the final reading of the meter and raise a bill within a week. They were also asked to provide a new connection in the name of the complainant within three days after deposit of the bill amount, on completion of the required formalities. It has come on record that in pursuance to this order, the necessary action has already been taken by the opposite party. The bill was raised, which was duly paid by the complainant without any protest and a new connection was also released in her favour. It is not understood, therefore, why the complainant filed the execution application, before the District Forum, requesting for the issuance of a computerized bill, when she had already made payment in question without any protest. The opposite party have explained that because of permanent disconnection, the bill could not be raised through their computerised system and hence, they prepared the bill manually and an amount of Rs. 37,908 was raised, based on the final reading in the previous meter, and the same was paid without any protest. Based on the above factual position, there does not seem to be any illegality committed on the part of the opposite party in not raising a computerized bill and giving only a manual bill. The order passed by the State Commission, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which may require interference at the revisional stage. The petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to costs.