MAGMA LEASING LTD Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision against the order dated 31.3.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh the petitioner/complainant seeks enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 15,000.

(2.) IN nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner was a consumer having electric connection at his house No. 1803/1, Patiala. He alleged that for sending bills he informed the S.D.O. Electricity, Fort Sub-Division, Patiala of the change in address on 26.8.1996. Respondent stated that the bill of Rs. 477 payable on or before 8.11.1996 was not paid and disconnection order was issued on 29.11.1996. Another bill of Rs. 914 inclusive of said amount of Rs. 477 was issued on 23.12.1996 which was payable on or before 9.1.1997. Since amounts of bills were not paid, the disconnection was done on 30.12.1996. Petitioner alleged that none of the said two bills was received by him. Complaint filed seeking certain reliefs by the petitioner on contest was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the respondent Electricity Board to issue fresh bill without levying restoration charges and on payment thereof, to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner. Amount of Rs. 7,000 was also ordered to be paid by way of compensation. Against the District Forum's order dated 10.9.1999 both the parties filed appeals. Appeal filed by the respondent Board was dismissed. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 15,000. Order under challenge notices that no evidence was led by the petitioner to show for how long the premises remained vacant and pending appeal filed by the respondent Board, stay was granted by the Commission suspending the operation of the order of District Forum. Considering these facts the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 15,000. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to compensation towards loss of rent for the entire period the electric supply remained disconnected. IN view of said facts, the petitioner cannot be awarded compensation as claimed. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.