RAM LAL BANSIWAL vs Business Manager, North Delhi Power Ltd

SHRI Ram Lal Bansiwal, the petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No. 8376 -A, Ground Floor, Kaloo Ram Building, Roshanara Road, Delhi. It had an electricity connection whose registered consumer was Shri Ramanand. The said electricity connection was disconnected for non -payment of dues in the sum of Rs.50,530/ -, which had accumulated against the said electricity connection by March, 2004. Another electricity connection was installed in the same premises in the name of the complainant as the registered consumer. He received a demand bill for the payment of dues of Rs.50,530/ - against the previous meter. The complainant was threatened that in case of non -payment of the said dues, his new meter will also be disconnected. The dues of previous bill were also transferred to new meter.

IN the meantime, Ram Lal Bansiwal filed a civil suit against NDPL and Shri Anil Kumar, wherein he called into question the transfer of dues from the previous meter to new meter. He also filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum wherein the complainant feigned ignorance as to the source of arrears amounting to Rs.56,160/ - and paid for connection of the aforesaid electricity bill in the month of July, 2004. Shri Anil Kumar was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the learned District Forum.

LEARNED District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the NDPL/opposite party to issue a fresh bill of Ram Lal Bansiwal''s electricity connection without reflecting the arrears. The complainant was directed by the District Forum to inform the NDPL about the whereabouts of his tenant whereas the NDPL was to transfer dues to the present electricity connection of the erstwhile tenant. Thereafter, Shri Ram Lal Bansiwal filed an execution petition against NDPL. Before the execution petition, the appellant stated that Shri Anil Kumar was the tenant. He had committed an egregious mistake by naming him. Shri Anil Kumar was called for the first time during the execution proceedings. He called into question the entire decree which was passed without hearing him. According to him, he had left the premises in the year 1984 and since then the complainant himself had been using the electricity supply. The District forum vide order dated 15.4.2009 observed that Shri Ram Lal Bansiwal had abused the process of forum and dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.5,000/ - in favour of the intervenor.

THE complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limini.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, the petitioner submitted that he has got no claim against Shri Anil Kumar, opposite party No. 2. Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, authorized representative and elder brother of Shri Anil Kumar appeared. To petitioner counsel''s argument, brother of respondent No. 2 reacted sharply. He contended that Shri Anil Kumar has been facing this litigation for the last 10 years for no fault of his. He also pointed out that his father was a tenant under the complainant and after the death of his father, Shri Anil Kumar, who is ailing for the last 2 years, was made a party. Shri Anil Kumar, who cannot attend the Commission gave the authority to his brother, Shri Surinder Kumar. Shri Surinder Kumar has filed written arguments. It was pointed out that the opposite party No. 2 was wrongly arrayed as party before the civil court. During the execution petition, he was named deliberately by Shri Ram Lal Bansiwal. It appears that petitioner had some grudge against Shri Anil Kumar. They are facing this litigation for the last ten days. They have spent enough money in engaging advocates and wasting their time in attending the court hearings. Out of blue, at the fag end of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner surprisingly submitted that the petitioner has got no grouse whatsoever against OP 2. He candidly admitted that petitioner had made a mistake by naming him during the execution proceedings.

IT is pertinent to note that this matter pertains to the year prior to 11.4.2001. If it is a story of three years old, it cannot be more than 11.4.1998. It is surprising to note that OP 2 had left the premises in the year 1984. It is difficult to fathom why his name was brought in the picture. We inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner as to who was the tenant in the year 2001 or prior to that, but he could not utter any name. It appears that the premises were being used by none -else than the owner/petitioner himself. In order to save his own skin, he has named Shri Anil Kumar due to some personal grudge.

NOW let us turn to the case of NDPL. It is clear that the filing of this case is vexatious and a frivolous act on the part of the petitioner. It also appears that it was ill advised to file this revision petition. Our attention was invited towards the Lok Adalat order dated 22.2.2012 where the matter stood settled. This case was filed by Shri Ramlal Bansiwal and the order, reads: ''''Sh. Ram Lal MLA Vs. Tata Power Distribution Ltd.

PLA -II NO. 1219/2011 K. No. 35100020088

AR/38/2012 Dated 22.02.2012

Present : Shri K. B. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, AM Legal with

Shri Jamal Nasir, AM Legal and

Shri Swami Nath, AG -II(D) SKN for the respondent.

Taken up application moved by petitioner. This case was settled on 16.01.2012 and the petitioner was required to pay the settled amount of Rs.32,000/ - - in installments. The petitioner has not been able to deposit the amount of the first installment as per Order of Settlement dated 16.1.2012 due to unavoidable circumstances. However, today the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has brought demand draft No. 087988 dated 14.02.2012 for Rs.16,000/ - which is handed over to Shri Jam.. Nasir, AM Legal (D) CVL. The amount of the balance 1 instalment shall be deposited as per Order of Settlement dated 16.1.2012. The other terms and conditions of the Order of Settlement dated 16.01.2012 shall remain the same. The Order of Settlement dated 16.01.2012 stands modified accordingly. The application stands disposed of. Dated 22.02.2012 Sd/ - Justice P. N. Nag (Retd.) Advocate/AR/Petitioner Presiding Judge -PLA On behalf of TPDDL ''''

. The Lok Adalat was presided over by a retired High Court judge.

TO sum up, this a well known legal maxim, "no man should be condemned unheard". Again, it is well said that money is a bottomless sea in which honor, conscience and truth may be drowned. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs.1,00,000/ - (one lakh) which be awarded to opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/ -, which be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of "Pay and Accounts Officer -Ministry of Consumer Affairs'', payable at New Delhi through demand draft. To make the things easy, the demand draft be prepared and handed over to the Registrar of this Commission, who will transmit the same to the concerned department. The amount be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise, both the amounts will carry interest @10% p.a., till its realization.