GOEL S.PAL Vs. DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.