The basic stand of the respondent as companyplainant was that prior to the inspection, on 02.07.2000 there was a sparking in the C.T. Box installed at his factory premises and the companyplainant immediately informed the appellant and requested for rectification of the defect.
This was stated to be in line with principles of natural justice and statutory prescriptions.
It was, therefore, prayed that reference should be made to the Electrical Inspector for action in terms of Section 26 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in short the Act .
The said prayer was rejected by the present appellant taking the stand that in case of tampering there was numberquestion of any reference to the Electrical Inspector.
An inspection was done on 04.07.2000.
The Inspecting staff found that there was tampering with the meter and, therefore, a demand of Rs.1,07,326/ was made purporting to be charges payable for actual companysumption of energy.
As the respondent was denied opportunity of placing his stand before the demand was raised, the same cannot be maintained being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The companyplainant had also given a letter dated 2.7.2000 to the department in this behalf and since the meter was defective the appellant should have rectified the meter.
It was further submitted that numberice was to be given before raising of demand.
Instead of doing that, the demand was raised for alleged tampering with the meter.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent is a companysumer of electricity and a meter was installed by the appellant at his factory premises.
An apneal was filed by the appellant herein before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in short the State Commission .
With reference to the inspection report it was averred that the seals were found intact and, therefore, there was numberquestion of any tampering.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in short the Commission .
JUDGMENT Arising Out of S.L.P. C No.
Questioning the demand, a companyplaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhiri, Haryana in short District Forum .
20653 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the Commission dismissed the revision petition filed in terms of Section 2l of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in short the Act .
