PATEL OIL MILLS Vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is an Oil Mill and is registered consumer of industrial power connection No. XI - 1662 installed at F-7, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Delhi for the last many years. On 18.11.1990 the complainant made written request to the O. P. for sanction of additional load of 500 HP (IP) + 10 KW (L) making total load of 1000 HP (IP) + 25 KW (L) and 12 KW (CP ). The process for enhancement of the load commenced on 29.1.1992. In anticipation of the sanction of enhancement of load the complainant purchased machineries and installed the same to justify the grant of additional load. However during this process there was a blast in the insulator in the substation of the existing connection. After rectification of the connection an inspection was made by the O. P. on 13.2.1991. The inspection report shows that the machines, which were required to be shown for additional load were connected with the supply line, though the complainant had represented that these machines have not been connected. Thus the respondent found the claim of the complainant false that the machines purchased were shown for grant of additional load and were lying un-connected

(2.) It is alleged by the complainant that the O. P. took inordinately long time in energising the load on one pretext or the other even after 13.2.1991. The additional load was ultimately energised on 23.5.1992. Through this complaint the complainant has sought compensation on account of loss he suffered in his business from 18.11.1992 to 23.5.1993 as well as extra charges paid by him for violation of the load. The amount of compensation sought by the complainant is Rs.9,66,480/-.

(3.) The claim of the complainant has been strongly resisted by the O. P. on the following grounds: (i) That on inspection on 13.2.1991 the complainant was found using the load in excess of the sanctioned load and, therefore, was charged for load violation as per rules; (ii) That there was no unnecessary delay in the sanction of the connection as the whole process involved setting up of sub-station as well as obtaining sanction from Delhi Administration for this particular purpose. Intimation from the Delhi Administration was received on 19.3.1992, hence there was no delay in sanctioning the energising of the additional load. Let us assume for sake of arguments that the contentions raised by the O. P. have substance and merit but still the fact remains that the O. P. was negligent in not providing the facility of enhancement of load well in time even after receiving the sanction from Delhi Administration in the year 1992. The complainant was running business of oil mill and had applied for enhancement of the load way back in the year 1990. Unfortunately there was a blast in the insulator, which was rectified well in time. The premises was inspected by the O. P. on 13.2.1991 and the claim of the complainant that the machinery purchased by him for the purpose of grant of additional load was lying in the premises unconnected with the supply line was found to be false. The grievance of the complainant against the charges levied for load violation does not appear to be justified in view of this report.