Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President &
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
S.K. ANAND—Appellant
versus
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD—Respondent
Appeal No. A-2163 of 2001—Decided on 4.7.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. K.L. Hans, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
Filing false and frivolous complaints under the Consumer Protection Act should be discouraged, and costs may be imposed on the appellant based on misrepresentation of facts and evasion of legitimate dues.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Release of Electric Connection - Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 15] - The court discussed the appellant's complaint against the respondent for not energizing the electric connection despite completing necessary formalities. The court upheld the view that filing false and frivolous complaints under the Act should be discouraged and justified the costs imposed on the appellant based on misrepresentation of facts and evasion of legitimate dues.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for not energizing the electric connection despite completing necessary formalities and paying the required amount. The respondent resisted the complaint, stating that the connection had been cancelled and the amount deposited had been refunded. The District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the District Forum's decision, stating that the appellant had filed a civil suit on the same cause of action and for the same relief. The court observed that the appellant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and had suppressed true and material facts. The court justified the costs imposed on the appellant based on misrepresentation of facts and evasion of legitimate dues.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's complaint against the respondent for not energizing the electric connection, the respondent's resistance to the complaint, and the justification of costs imposed on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's filing of false and frivolous complaints under the Act, which the court deemed should be discouraged. The court justified the costs imposed on the appellant based on misrepresentation of facts and evasion of legitimate dues.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay the costs imposed by the District Forum, along with further costs imposed by the court, within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—This appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against the order of District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 28.8.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 3168/2001 - entitled Shri S.K. Anand v. Delhi Vidyut Board.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant Shri S.K. Anand had filed a complaint before the District Forum on the ground that he had applied to the respondent for the release of I.P. connection and had completed all the necessary formalities required and thereafter had been allotted electric connection bearing K. No. ILP-503-132473 for a sanctioned load of 120 HP. The appellant had also duly deposited the amount of Rs. 70,513/- as directed by the respondent for the release of the above said connection. Despite having made the necessary payment and completing the required formalities, the said connection was not energized by the respondent on the ground that another connection installed in the name of M/s. Goenka Steel and Alloys, in the same premises, had been disconnected for non-payment of dues and as such the appellant was required to submit an affidavit and undertaking to the effect that he was not the beneficiary of the said connection existing earlier in the name of M/s. Goenka Steel and Alloys. It was the case of the appellant that he could not be held responsible for paying the arrears of dues in respect of another connection in the name of another consumer and that the respondent was bound to honour the agreement executed for the energization of the connection allotted in favour of the appellant. It was also stated that a civil suit had been filed by the appellant earlier on the same cause of action as the present complaint. However, later the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the respondent for energising the connection already sanctioned in his favour, as well as, to pay damages amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant.
3. The complaint, filed by the appellant, was resisted by the respondent and it was stated by the respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, that the connection sanctioned in favour of the appellant firm had been cancelled and the amount of Rs. 70,413/- deposited by him had been duly refunded vide cheque dated 4.10.1996 by registered post but the same had been returned back undelivered. Furthermore, the appellant had been requested to complete the necessary formalities vide letter dated 6.8.1996, but the respondent had failed to do the needful and as such the connection sanctioned in his favour could not be energised. Furthermore, the appellant had moved the Civil Court for energization of the connection in question which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 20.9.1999 with directions to the appellant to complete the commercial formalities. Since the respondent had failed to comply with the said order, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Furthermore, huge arrears amounting to Rs. 4,88,08,718.42 were outstanding against the electric connection existing in the same premises in the name of the firm M/s. Goenka Steel and Alloys and the appellant in order to avoid the payment of the said arrears was deviously seeking a fresh connection in the same premises, which could not be allowed in the circumstances of the case. It was accordingly prayed that the complaint filed by the appellant, being devoid of merit was liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The learned District Forum on the basis of the material on record dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant, with costs of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 26 of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant at length. Howev
