LAWS(NCD)-2003-11-147

RAVI SHANKAR AGARWAL Vs. R S E B

Decided On November 11, 2003
RAVI SHANKAR AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
R S E B Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-appellant had been sanctioned MIG electric connection by the respondent to run his industry with the condition that he shall have to pay for consumption of 19800 units minimum per month irrespective of less consumption by him. His grievance was that during the period from 7.11.1991 to 8.11.1993 he was charged for consumption of 483120 units instead of charging for consumption of 475200 units. He, therefore, claimed refund of the excess amount. His further grievance was that during the period from 18.8.1993 to 16.9.1993 (Anxs.2 and 3) the appellant complainant did not consume electric energy as per orders of the department on account of electricity cut and, therefore, the amount charged from them for that period as also fuel surcharge on minimum units consumption should be got refunded from the respondent board. The Forum accepted the first grievance of the complainant and held that the appellant complainant had consumed 475200 units instead of 483120 units of electric energy and, therefore, the excess amount charged for consumption of 7920 units be credited to his account. The Forum, however, rejected appellant's prayer for not charging any amount from him for the period from 18.8.1993 to 16.9.1993.

(2.) It may be appreciated that the appellant himself had contended that he had wrongly been charged for consumption of 483120 units instead of 475200 units during the period from 7.11.1991 to 8.11.1993. The aforesaid period covers the period for which the appellant wants reduction. The Forum has already rightly allowed 7920 units reduction to him. In our opinion the further prayer of the appellant in that behalf is not maintainable.

(3.) The appellant complainant is not found entitled to any concession in respect of fuel surcharge on minimum consumption of units as also on the other ground. In view of the above, we find no force in Deptt. 's appeal too. Both the appeals are dismissed with cost on parties.