IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 11.01.2024 Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 27/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. NARESH KUMAR DABAS, S/O MR. NARAYAN SINGH, R/O H. NO. 331, VILLAGE AND POST BARWALA, NEW DELHI–110042.

(Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gill, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS M/S. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD., THROUGH ITS CEO, HUDSON LINES KINGSWAY CAMP, NEW DELHI–110009.

(Through: Mr. Harish Purohit, Authorised Representative)

… Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gill, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Harish Purohit, AR of the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case, as per the District Commission record, are:

“There are two applications pending for adjudication. The first application was filed on 03.11.2017 by which the Complainant has sought appointment of the Local Commissioner to conduct the inspection of area for taking the precautions taken by the OP. The next application was filed on 03.08.2019 seeking permission to appoint technical person of National Testing Laboratory to inspect the locality of the Complainant where the alleged incident of voltage fluctuation occurred on 17.08.2016. By way of both these applications the Complainant has sought inspection of the area by different agencies and the prayers in both these applications are similar. Hence, by way of this order we would be disposing of both these applications together.

At the onset we also record that on the last date of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has stated that in the second application the name of the testing agency has been indicated as a suggestion and this Commission may direct the inspection by any other testing agency.

The Opposite Party has already filed the replies of these applications on 22.12.2017 and 15.11.2019 respectively and has opposed the said applications. We have also heard the arguments of the parties on these applications.

Briefly stated, the Complainant alleges that on 17.08.2016 that because of possible Voltage Surge, there was a blast in the afternoon at the Electricity pole no. HT-2/1/3, as a result of which there was no light in various houses for a very long time. It is also stated that because of the said alleged blast several electric equipment and electric wiring of the that on the said dated there was outage of power because of fact that HT fuse at the pole house of the Complainant was severely damaged. In the reply the Opposite Party has stated 516/2/1/3 was blown which was subsequently repaired. The Opposite Party has also stated that there was no power surge on the said date.

As the alleged power surge took place on the year 2016 and substantial time has passed, conducing any survey and inspection will not be fruitful. Further, while for proving the case, the Complainant is required to bring the evidences in support of his claims and the Commission cannot allow fishing expedition by the Complainant by facilitating collection of evidence. Accordingly, we are not inclined to allow the applications. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.

It has also been stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant herein is not a subscriber of the electricity connection and he is a relative of one Mr. Ray Singh, in whose name the connection still subsist. This fact has not been denied by the Complainant in the rejoinder, Complainant has conceded that the electricity connection is still in the name of Mr. Ray Singh who has since expired way back in the year 1982. The Complainant herein is said to be brother of the said original subscriber of the connection.”

2. The District Commission, after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the order dated 29.11.2023, whereby it held as under:

“We have perused the documents and also seen the records. Primarily we are of the