SURAJ BANSI PRINTERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /Complainant has filed this revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Act,1986 (for short, 'Act'), against order dated 12.07.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission')in (Appeal No.403 of 2000)

(2.) CASE of petitioner is that four electric connection bearing nos.MS -41, MS -110, MS -154 and MS -173 are installed in his factory premises in the names of Suraj Bansi Printers, Vijay Finishing Mills, Narain Singh and Ashwani Kumar respectively. The above connections were taken by above mentioned individuals/concerns, on different dates as per their requirements. Respondents/Opposite parties insisted upon the petitioner to apply for clubbing of four MS Connections. Petitioner accordingly applied and gave consent for clubbing of the four connections. It is alleged that respondents actually did not club the four electric connections, but started charging LS tariff with 20% additional surcharge. Respondents have not carried out transition by converting MS to LS connections inspite of the fact that consent was given by the petitioner to the respondent. It is further stated that respondents are not entitled to charge tariff for LS connection without providing any service of LS connection and it can only be done so after changing MS connection to LS connection, which includes installation of transformer, removing of four MS meters, installation of one high potency meter of LS connection etc. The respondents have raised total demand of Rs.2,10,253/ - for the aforesaid connections. However, respondents are not entitled to charge any higher tariff. Since, respondents have started charging LS tariff, the petitioner filed complaint seeking the following reliefs;

(3.) RESPONDENTS in their written reply have stated, that four electric connections were installed in the factory of the petitioner. Respondents have issued notices asking the petitioner to get all the four electric connections clubbed. The petitioner gave option and consent for clubbing of all the four connections in the month of 9/99, but has not submitted fresh A and A form, contract demand, test report etc. As such, connections could not be clubbed for want of the estimate. Further, petitioner is not cooperating with the respondents and for this reason, respondents started charging LS tariff. It is further stated that respondents have written two letters Nos.1822 dated 30.7.1997 and 2353 dated 9.11.1998, asking the petitioner to submit fresh A and A Form, test report for the total load and mentioning of contract demand. But petitioner has not submitted the same so far. However, as per Circular No.78/95, the petitioner has paid the bill without any protest to the respondents. Thus, the demand raised is legal and complaint be dismissed with costs.