J S CHAUHAN Vs. DAINIK BHASKER NEWS PAPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for sanction of electric connection for agriculture on 12.7.1993 under general category for which he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to take benefit of 1-2 pole scheme of the petitioner Board. Yet, the connection was not given even after lapse of almost 3 years. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to sanction the connection to the complainant.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties passed the following order: " In view of the above the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall give the benefit of notification dated 5.1.1996 to the respondent also at par with those in whose cases demand was raised at the relevant time and benefit of this notification was given. The case of the present respondent would be treated at par with the cases of those persons but this case would not be treated as a precedent in such matters. The appellant would raise the demand accordingly and would deliver such demand to the respondent within a period of one month from today failing which this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed."