Full Judgment
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial):
1) This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 16.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 519/2007, Lalit Kapoor V/s DDA and Ors.
2) Brief facts relating to this appeal are that the appellant/complainant constructed a House on Plot No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-10, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi. He received occupancy certificate from DDA on 09.08.2004 and conveyance deed was registered on 09.02.2005. The area was developed by the DDA. DDA had deposited processing fee, but electrification was not done by OP-2 i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. New Delhi. Complainant has temporary connection in his house. He tried his level best to get permanent electric connection but could not succeed and therefore he was forced to keep the premises vacant/unoccupied. He therefore filed a consumer complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 Lac from the respondents/OPs.
3) The complaint proceeded ex-parte against the OP-2. However, OP-1 filed written statement denying the allegations. It was submitted that the complainant/appellant applied for temporary connection which was provided to him by OP-2. As per terms and conditions of electrification charges was already deposited by the DDA to BRPL, the amount which was required to be deposited by OP-1 was deposited with OP-2 as per terms and conditions of the OP-2. The parties led evidence and the Ld. District Forum after evaluation of evidence on record found the complaint misconceived and dismissed it.
4) The complainant felt aggrieved and filed present appeal inter-alia on the grounds that the complainant never suppressed material facts. Relevant ownership papers in the form of conveyance deed were submitted. The appellant/complainant was restrained from occupying his newly constructed house because of none availability of permanent electric connection. Both OP-1 and 2 assured the complainant/appellant time and again that electrification would soon to be done, only when the patience of the complainant/appellant was lost after a very long wait he approached the District Forum. However, an erroneous finding was given by the Ld. District Forum in as much as the complaint was not time barred, and the case law provided by the complainant was misinterpreted. That Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the issue before it, and reached on an erroneous conclusion. Respondent-1 DDA filed reply, respondent-2 could not file reply timely and therefore opportunity was closed on 14.03.2011, later on the reply was filed but the same could not be taken on record.
5) In its reply, DDA has maintained that the complaint was time barred and therefore was rightly rejected by the Ld. District Forum. Further, construction activity started in the pocket concerned in the year 2001. A request alongwith processing fee of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by DDA to BRPL for electrification of the scheme vide letter No. F10(38)ED-2/DDA/2001-02/1202 dt. 22.11.2001. On vigorous follow up demand note was received from BRPL on 18.09.2007 and finally an amount of Rs. 1,50,37,793/- Rs. 10,000/- was deposited to BRPL on 30.03.2007 by the DDA. Complainants letter and RTI application dt. 14.12.2006 were duly replied. Thus there has been no deficiency on the part of the OP-1/respondent-1 and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6) We have heard complainant/appellant in person and Ms. Aarti Bansal, Counsel for the Respondent-1. Sh. Abhinav Ansaria, Counsel for the Respondent-2 also participating in the proceedings. We have also gone through the written arguments and the case law filed by the appellant/complainant.
7) Every citizen of this country has a right to access to basic amenities like electricity and water. Electricity and water are such basic and vital essentials without which it is not possible to live and therefore, every developer and service provider has to ensure the availability of these amenities within a reasonable period of time. A customer cannot be compelled to occupy a house or flat without these essentials. It has therefore to be seen whether OP-1 and 2/Respondents-1and 2 were deficient in providing services.
8) Every owner/Tenant/lawful occupier has a right to get basic amenity like electricity. Such a person cannot be denied electric connection. In the present case, complainant/appellant obtained an occupancy certificate from the DDA on 09.08.2004, conveyance deed was executed by the DDA in favour of the complainant on 09.02.2005. A certified copy of the same was made available on record. Conveyance deed is a reliable document of ownership. This document by itself was sufficient for obtaining permanent electric connection. There was no need for further investigation as the Ld. District Forum was not deciding a title suit, it was simply a consumer complaint, in which further investigation was not needed.
9) Another point for determination before the Ld. District Forum was whether the complaint was time barred. The Ld. District Forum made an observation that the cause of action arose in the year of 2004 and the complaint was filed in June 2007 i.e. after a period of more than two years, therefore, the complaint was held to be time barred. This certainly was an erroneous finding in as much as the cause of action was of continuing in nature in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The complainant remained in touch with the opposite parties throughout. Conveyance deed was registered by the DDA on 09.02.2005, therefore, the finding of complaint being time barred was erroneous and illegal.
10) However, there are certain undisputed facts. Complainant was provided with temporary connection on 23.02.2009. On 07.01.2009 name change was effected with respect to the same connection in the premises in question. Name of registered owner was changed from Sh. Ramphal to Sh. Lalit Kapoor and Ms. Ritu Kapoor. Permanent regular electricity connection was provided by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 22.05.2009, without unreasonable delay. DDA deposited processing fee of Rs. 10,000/- on 22.11.2001, however, demand note was received late from BRPL and a sum of Rs. 1,50,27,793/- was deposited by the DDA on 30.03.2007. In DDA V/s Tikaram 3 (1995) CPJ 441 Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that essential services like water, electricity and sewerage lines which had to be laid by other authorities had not been completed, it cannot be held deficiency of service on the part of DDA. Similar finding was given by Honble National Commission in P. Gopala Subrahmaniyam V/s Vice Chairman APHB, Hyderabad II (1995) CPJ 162 NC.
11) The complainant/appellant in his written arguments has cited several case law to prove that permanent electric connection was considerably delayed that he had to run from pillar to post for getting the same. Besides, he had to undergo lot of pain and agony due to deficient services provided by OPs/ respondents. He quoted Revision Petition No. 694/2003 decided on 27.01.2003 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and FA No. 2862/2000 decided on 09.05.2006 in DDA V/s Jagmohan Kapila by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
12) In view of the facts and circumstances and the case law discussed above, we are of the considered view that the respondents/OPs were not deficient in providing services. The facts and circumstances of each case differ from one another and cannot be applied blindly. The cases relied upon by the appellant/complainant are quite different and are not of any help to complainant.
13) Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the appeal is without force and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
14) The cost is however made easy.
15) Let a copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
16) A copy of the judgment be placed on the record of the complainant file.