GOEL S.PAL Vs. DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-3-17
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 07,2006

GOEL S.PAL Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT - (1.) M /s. Broadway Packaging was the original owner of Shed No. A -76, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -II where the electric connection was installed. Appellant purchased the share of the said company and became the owner of the Shed in 1992. The erstwhile owner deposited a sum of Rs. 17,500 towards development charges with the respondent for electricity connection but these were not paid back to the appellant. As a result, the appellant filed a complaint before District Forum which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved the appellant has directed this appellant.
(3.) THE complaint of the appellant was dismissed mainly on the ground that it is only the person who had paid the amount to the respondent can seek its refund. Since the appellant failed to show any document conferring any right upon him to receive the charges deposited with by the respondent he was not entitled for any refund. Further that vide respondents letter dated 15.2.1991 the development charges at Rs. 350 per H.P. are payable by commercial establishments who apply for ad hoc registration certificate and since in the instant case no claim is made that M/s. Broadway Packaging had applied for ad hoc registration nor were any papers filed nor was any rule cited to show that the amount of security was not in accordance with rules nor was it shown that the service charges were excessive, complaint was rightly dismissed. In view of the undisputed fact that on amount of Rs. 17,500 was received by the respondent towards development charges from M/s. Broadway Packaging and the interests of Broadway Packaging were transferred to the appellant by way of purchase of its shares and since connection was not provided to the respondent, it could not have retained this amount as the complainant became the beneficiary of the service availed by M/s. Broadway Packaging and, therefore, was a consumer qua the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here at this stage that the appellant had also informed the respondent vide letter dated 14.8.1982 to complete the commercial formalities but there was no response from them.;


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