LAWS(WBCDRC)-2004-5-1

C E S C LIMITED Vs. ARUN GOENKA

Decided On May 17, 2004
C E S C Limited Appellant
V/S
ARUN GOENKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit -I on 28.2.2002. The facts of the case in a nutshell are stated hereunder:

(2.) IN its judgment the Forum directed the O.P. to raise 40% of the bill for unmetered consumption and the complainant was directed to pay by way of ad hoc payment. The O.P. was further directed to reconnect the electric line immediately after receiving the ad hoc payment. After reconnection the disputed bill would stand referred to the C.E.I., W.B. for adjudication and the decision of the C.E.I. would be binding on both the parties.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the judgment the appellant -C.E.S.C. has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of pilferage of electrical energy by the respondent. The pilferage was detected on 10.9.2001 during surprise inspection. It was noticed that the seal on the meter box was supurious and electric energy was dishonestly abstracted in violation of several provisions of the Indian Electricity Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder by the appellant. On detection of this illegal drawal of electric energy by the appellant, the line was disconnected. An FIR was lodged with the local Police Station on the same date. According to the respondent the appellant is required to pay for the unmetered consumption of energy, a sum of Rs. 13,040.69. The appellant contends that the reconnection of electric line could not be effected until and unless the unmetered consumption is paid. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no notice of disconnection was required to be served upon the consumer in case of pilferage of electricity. The respondent further submits that this appeal is not at all maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Forum below which is, according to it, erroneous and unjust.