LAWS(NCD)-2006-10-114

KAMLESH CHADHA Vs. BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED

Decided On October 17, 2006
KAMLESH CHADHA Appellant
V/S
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the Voluntary Declared Load Scheme/load Enhancement Scheme floated by the O. P. in December, 1995 the complainant applied for enhancement of load from 5 KW to 43 HP by way of depositing requisite fee of Rs.46,600. Till 2002 she has been receiving electricity bills on the basis of 5 kw load as during this period no steps for enhancement of load were allegedly taken by the O. P. Complainant was told that after installation of CT meter and new cable, the billing will be done on enhanced load and consequently the complainant did not instal new machinery as neither the load was enhanced nor CT meter was changed nor new cable was changed. When the factories were removed from the non-confirming areas, the complainant approached the O. P. for issuing No Dues Certificate in September, 2002. At that time she was handed over a bill of Rs.1,95,771.28p. as dues raised on the basis of enhanced load out of which 1.75 lacs were arrears.

(2.) In justification of the raising of aforesaid bill the O. P. has produced document showing that the load was enhanced in the year 1995 itself i. e. , after a week or so of the application of the complainant for enhancement. However, the document produced by the O. P. shows that the original electricity connection was domestic connection which was subsequently changed to industrial connection and on 28.12.1995 the load was changed to 43 HP.

(3.) It is not understandable as to why did the respondent not raise the electricity bills on the enhanced load of 43 HP if the load was enhanced in the year 1995 and why for the first time in the year 2002, i. e. , after seven long years the complainant was told when she approached the O. P. for issuing No Dues Certificate that there were arrears of 1.75 lacs. It appears that these arrears were shown after seven long years on the premise that the actual load being used by the complainant was 43 HP when she applied for enhancement.