JAI KISHAN GUPTA Vs. CHAIRMAN 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 the 11.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.3327/2001, entitled Shri Jai Kishan Gupta V/s. Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Jai Kishan Gupta had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum and in complaint, filed by the appellant, the main grievance of the appellant was that in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No.1004-PP-506, installed at his residence at 299, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, the respondent DVB had levied misuse charges without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. In the complaint, filed by the appellant it was prayed that the bills in question be quashed and the respondent DVB be directed to raise fresh bills at normal rates prescribed for domestic on the basis of consumption in the meter without levy of minuse/surcharge/late payment fees. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to refund excess amount charged from the appellant. The appellant had also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.3,000/- together with cost of litigation.

(3.) The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent DVB and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent DVB, it was stated that on 6.5.1998, the Meter Reader had reported that the domestic connection was being misused for commercial purposes. It was stated that on the basis of the above report of the Meter Reader the respondent started levy of misuse charges. It was further stated that the appellant submitted an application for the withdrawal of misuse charges and also deposited inspection fees. The concerned Inspector visited the site and reported that there was no misuse and, therefore, the misuse charges were withdrawn w. e. f.26.12.2000. In the reply/written version, the stand taken by the respondent DVB was that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.