Decided on September 15,2010

H P S E B Appellant
Prem Singh Thakur Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin in Consumer Complaint No. 56/2010, dated 15.6.2010. While allowing the complaint, the appellant was ordered and directed to provide electricity on the extended load on the basis, i.e. from 5.9 to 74.890 KW on electricity A/C/No.BC -69 with effect from February, 2008 and to withdraw the demand notice No. BCS -II/C -3/09 -10 -1375 -76, dated 27.2.2010.
(2.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Chandel learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that initially his clients had sanctioned 5.90 KW load in the year, 2000 for ground floor of the building. It has been unilaterally, as well as illegally increased and extended by the respondent to the first floor from initially sanctioned load of 5.90 KW to 74.890 KW in July, 2008. This could have been done after he had obtained permission from the appellants after complying with the codal formalities, like furnishing of NOC from Municipal Council, Bilaspur and as well as from the office of Town and Country Planning, also at Bilaspur. Since the load was illegally extended, therefore, the appellants were legitimately entitled to 11/2 time of scheduled rate for which the demand has been raised by them, vide document copy of which is at page -20 of the complaint file. In this document amount claimed is for the months of July, 2000 to November, 2009, and according to Mr.Chandel till date appellants after legitimately entitled to claim the amount at this rate. Question of charging of normal rate would only arise, when construction is legitimately carried out by the respondent. In this background, according to learned Counsel for the appellants, District Forum below fell into error while allowing the complaint as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) AT this stage another fact pointed out by Mr. Chandel is, that till date no payment of consumption charges of electricity even at normal rates as charged from other similar consumers has been made by the respondent. All these pleas were seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent. He submitted that tenant of the respondent deposited security amounting to Rs. 26,250 with the appellants. However, on instructions received from Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that no such payment has been received and no receipt had been issued to that effect.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.