Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
SOUTH WEST DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD./BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. V/S MAHENDER KUMAR, decided on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.
[ In the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, Appeal No. A-875 of 2002. ] 06/12/2005
Judge(s) : J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT & MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page







#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2006 (2) CPJ 184"  







    Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) -     J.D. Kapoor President:1. Vide impugned order dated 3.6.2002 the appellant was directed to withdraw all the bills issued on the basis of a load of 6 KW and the excess amount paid by the respondent after adjusting the payment shall be refunded to the respondent and similarly deposit of Rs. 8 000 + Rs. 1 200 for enhancing load to 6 KW shall be refunded to him with 10% interest.2. Through this appeal the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the respondent has filed an affidavit that he was already using 6 KW and he should be sanctioned the same load.3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent had two meters of one KW each and on 17.1.1996 he had applied for 6 KW load under a scheme announced by the appellant. He had deposited Rs. 8 000 as necessary fees for this enhanced load and Rs. 1 200 also as MG charges for 6 months. This enhanced load was not given to him. He applied on 3.12.1999 that this application may be treated as cancelled but an action was taken on this also. He had been sent bills on the enhanced load without any basis when enhanced load was never sanctioned.4. According to the appellant the respondent applied for cancellation on 3.12.1999 and was advised to complete the formalities which he did on 4.3.2001. The load was reduced to 2 KW w.e.f. 3.1.2001 and therefore there was no lapse or deficiency on the part of the appellant.5. Deficiency is writ large on the face as no action was taken for enhancement of the load inspite of having received an application in this regard on 3.12.1999 and when he applied for cancellation of the earlier application the appellant raised a bill by taking the load being used by the respondent as 6 KW. Unless and until the load was sanctioned on receipt of the application the appellant had no right to raise bill on basis of the proposed enhanced load.6. Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.7. Bank Guarantee/FDR if any furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.Appeal dismissed.