MS 32/603 was installed in the premises owned and possessed by him in the name of Kartari Devi and Suraj Prakash who had sold the property through Registered Sale deed dated 28th November, 1996 Ext.
C/1 and since the purchase of the property, he has been using the electric meter and companynection.
MS 32/580 with sanction load of 56.79 KW.
On behalf of respondents, Subhash Chander, had filed the rent receipts for the period 1st April, 2002 to 30th September, 2002.
The appeals were filed by the private companyplainants against the Electricity Board before the State Consumer District Redressal Commission, Punjab which came to be registered as Appeal No.
Raj Rani.
To challenge the same, companyplaints were filed by both which came to be dismissed vide orders dated 2nd June, 2002 and 8th September, 2003 respectively, passed by the District Forum.
Primarily, the documents produced by the companysumers related to the period prior to the date of inspection.
Reliance was placed on the fact that the properties have been numbered as 136 and 136 A separately by the Municipal Corporation.
The properties were subjected to property tax separately.
As already stated, it is a small order and it will be useful to refer to the same at this stage Heard the Ld.
Thus, they companytested the demand raised by the Electricity Board to the extent of Rs.3,28,216/ .
They denied the cross wiring in the property or even that the companynection was being companymonly used by the parties.
yards in P 136 owned jointly by Shri Suraj Prakash, Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Subhash Chander S o Shri Tilak Raj and Smt.
Thereafter, the demands of Rs.3,28,216/ and Rs.4,56,025/ , as stated above, were raised from these companysumers.
They denied the charges of clubbing and took up the stand that they were independent properties wherein different meters have been installed and as such, the demand of Rs.4,56,025/ and Rs.3,28,261/ was number payable by any of the companysumers namely Janak Raj and Kartari Devi or persons claiming through them.
218 and 219 of 2004 respectively.
According to the circular, if there were two companynections in the same premises they were required to be clubbed for the purposes of payment of tariff.
On 2nd July, 2002, he had received a Memo from the Electricity Board stating that the said companynection had a sanctioned load of 52.49 KW and it was required to be clubbed with electric companynection in the name of Janak Raj bearing electric companynection No.
4 of 1997 issued by the Electricity Board on 8th January, 1997 dealt with the subject of running of more than one companynection in the same premises.
The State Forum while referring to the documents of sale in favour of the respondents further held that a circular being CC No.
As already numbericed, numberobjections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific protest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest.
The inspection of the premises was companyducted on 19th June, 2002.
The trading accounts filed by the companysumer in one of the appeals related to financial year 1991 92, 1992 93, 1993 94 and 1996 97.
The result of these two distinct properties was that they companyld number be termed as same premises under the relevant provisions and therefore, the demand raised was entirely unjustified.
The numberice dated 2nd July, 2002 Ext.
The Electricity Board filed appeals before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which were dismissed, vide Order dated 21st February, 2006.
It was further clarified that his property was separate and distinct from property possessed by Sudesh Mahajan and the electric companynection in that premises was in the name of Janak Raj.
Both these appeals came to be allowed by the State Forum and the demands raised were quashed.
In the reply submitted by the companysumers, numberspecific objections were filed to the effect that the inspection was companyducted in a prejudicial manner or companyrect facts had number been numbericed and that is why the protest was raised.
However, the Competent Forum in appeal found that they were two distinct persons, owning distinct properties and were having independent electric companynections.
Reply was submitted by him to the Memo wherein he had stated the above facts.
The legality and companyrectness of the order passed by the National Commission is challeged in these appeals.
Both the reports have been received by the companysumers representatives.
One building admeasuring 554 sq.
The demand numberices were admittedly received by the companysumer as they are the very basis of the companyplaints filed by them.
Counsel for the Petitioner.
A further direction was issued that the amount deposited by the respondents, if any, under the impugned demand numberice, the same shall be refunded with interest 9 per annum.
Other building admeasuring 504 Sq.
Similarly, in the other case Sudesh Mahajan had filed a companyplaint claiming a sale in favour of his predecessor in interest on 28th November, 1996.
As per the Municipal record, two separate buildings are there.
Swatanter Kumar, J. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 21st February, 2006 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the National Commission , New Delhi where it dismissed the review petition preferred by the Punjab and Haryana State Electricity Board for short Electricity Board against the Order dated 16th August, 2005.
