TARA CHAND YADAV Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/ complainant has made a complaint under Sec.10 (a) (i) and Sec.36b (a) of the MRTP Act, 1969 charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and unfair trade practices and alleging therein that he made a written complaint to the respondent on 28th May, 1996 regarding the burnt meter installed at his premises, House No.206, Shakurpur, Delhi. It has been mentioned by him that on his complaint, an inspection was carried out by the respondent on 3.6.1996 but no irregularity was found except that the half seal of the meter had melted. It has been further alleged that the respondent issued a show cause notice to the applicant/complainant to the effect that a connected load of 74.97 KW was detected in addition to tampering of the meter. The grievance of the applicant/ complainant is that although a reply to the show cause notice was sent on 12.7.1996 and it was denied that there was meter tampering or connected load was in excess of the sanctioned load, he received two assessment bills for Rs.4,78,351.56 and Rs.7,467.50 for the period 3.2.1996 to 3.6.1996 on the ground of theft of electricity. The other grievance of the applicant/complainant is that even though there was no allegation of tampering with seals of light meter, the respondent has raised the assessment bills pertaining to light connection also.

(2.) Based on the aforesaid complaint, a Notice of Enquiry dated 1.9.1997 was issued to the respondent. In reply thereto, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that the applicant/ complainant had committed irregularities such as load violation, misuse and sub-letting of the connection and abstraction of energy illegally. It has been mentioned in the reply that the bills for Rs.4,78,351.56 and Rs.7,467.50 were raised on the basis of theft of electricity. It has been further highlighted in the reply that a joint inspection of the applicant/complainant's premises was carried out on 3.6.1996 by the enforcement staff and the staff of the meter testing department of the respondent in the presence of a representative of the applicant/complainant and it was detected that the connected load was 74.97 KW as against the sanctioned load of 60 KW and the supply was being used by both M/s. Munna Painting Works and M/s. TVS Electronics Corporation and, therefore, penalties for load violation and for misuse of the connection and also misuse due to PVC extended were added to the bill. It was also pointed out that the supply was found to have been sub-let to M/s. Munna Painting Works and moreover, since the bills had remained outstanding, no relief could be provided to the applicant/complainant, more particularly, in a case of theft of electricity.

(3.) On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been or are indulging in unfair trade practices as indicated in the noe (2) If the answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative, whether the unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or to the interest of the consumer or consumers generally