Decided on December 16,2008

Accounts Officer, Ero -Iii Appellant
Shyam Sundarlal Sanghi Respondents


- (1.) WE have heard both the counsel on the delay excuse petition as well as merits of appeal. The grievance of the complainant is that she was the owner of the premises having electricity connection No.3000074 and was paying the consumption charges without any default. However, she was also having another service connection bearing No.N.300139 and the Board was sending separate bills. In March, 2004, the Board has sent a combined bill by clubbing both the bills, whereby she would be forced to pay more towards the electric consumption charges.
(2.) THE Board resisted the case alleging that Assistant Engineer inspected the premises of the complainant in the month of March, 2004 wherein he found that the meter N3 -74 was switched off, however, the power supply was live and she has been drawing electricity through another meter. Both the service connections are situated in the same premises with different connection numbers and therefore as per Section 88 together with condition No.27.3 of terms and conditions of supply of Electricity, the Board in its discretion treated it as a single connection and accordingly issued bills. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
(3.) THE complainant filed evidence affidavit besides Exs.A1 to A9. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record opined that earlier two bills have been issued separately and there was no reason as to why a single bill was issued making her to pay more than what she had to pay. The representation made by the complainant was not taken care of and therefore a direction was issued to split up the bill as were issued earlier and if there is any excess amount paid by the complainant, the same be adjusted in future bills together with costs of Rs.1,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said order, the electricity Board, preferred this appeal contending that a single bill was issued by clubbing both the connections since they were empowered to club two or more connections situated within the single premises by virtue of the terms and conditions. Along with it an application under Section 15 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 410 days on the ground that there was delay in getting necessary sanctions from the authorities. The respondent opposed for condoning the delay on the ground that no reason whatsoever was mentioned as to why the enormous delay occurred and from whom the sanction had to be obtained.;

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