State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Asstt.Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L., vs Prakash Kerba Raut on 15 February, 2016
1 F.A..No.:685/2014
Date of filing :20.10.2014
Date of order :15.02.2016
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :685 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:202 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR
1. Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.
Sub Division, Murud, Tq.& Dist.Latur.
2. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Latur. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Prakash Kerba Raut,
R/o Bhikar Sarola,
Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.N.Tandale for appellants, Adv.Mr.N.B.Jadhav for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15th February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainant's claim in consumer complaint No.210/2010 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, within 30 days and in the event of failure to pay interest @ 9% p.a. etc. 1 F.A..No.:685/2014 Date of filing :20.10.2014 Date of order :15.02.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :685 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:202 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR
1. Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Sub Division, Murud, Tq.& Dist.Latur.
2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Latur. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Prakash Kerba Raut, R/o Bhikar Sarola, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.N.Tandale for appellants, Adv.Mr.N.B.Jadhav for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15th February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainant's claim in consumer complaint No.210/2010 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, within 30 days and in the event of failure to pay interest @ 9% p.a. etc. 1 F.A..No.:685/2014 Date of filing :20.10.2014 Date of order :15.02.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :685 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:202 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR
1. Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Sub Division, Murud, Tq.& Dist.Latur.
2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Latur. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Prakash Kerba Raut, R/o Bhikar Sarola, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.N.Tandale for appellants, Adv.Mr.N.B.Jadhav for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15th February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainant's claim in consumer complaint No.210/2010 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, within 30 days and in the event of failure to pay interest @ 9% p.a. etc. 1 F.A..No.:685/2014 Date of filing :20.10.2014 Date of order :15.02.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :685 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:202 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR
1. Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Sub Division, Murud, Tq.& Dist.Latur.
2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Latur. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Prakash Kerba Raut, R/o Bhikar Sarola, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.N.Tandale for appellants, Adv.Mr.N.B.Jadhav for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15th February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainant's claim in consumer complaint No.210/2010 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, within 30 days and in the event of failure to pay interest @ 9% p.a. etc. 2 F.A..No.:685/2014 (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent Shri.Prakash Raut as the complainant)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mr.Prakash who is a farmer having field Gut No.764 of village Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur. On 17.2.2009 he applied with the opponents for electric connection of 7.5 HP and paid Rs.7170/- as per quotation supplied by the opponents. The same amount was received by the office of opponents on 3.3.2009. It is submitted by complainant that as opponents had given assurance to give electric connection he prepared 10 acres of his land for plantation of sugarcane. But despite his repeated oral request and notice dated
3.5.2010 in writing, the opponents did not give any response. According to complainant as per the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Electric Act 2003 it was obligatory on the part of opponents to provide electric connection within 30 days after receipt of application and if not supplied electric connection within the stipulated period of 30 days, non-applicants are liable to pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day for such default. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents filed consumer complaint claiming compensation at Rs.8 lakhs towards loss sustained in the agriculture income and also penalty of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of application till the date of giving electric connection.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponents appeared before the Forum and by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-
They did not dispute that on 17.2.2009 complainant applied for electric connection and paid connection charges as per quotation. However, they have denied that complainant is their consumer. It is 2 F.A..No.:685/2014 (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent Shri.Prakash Raut as the complainant)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mr.Prakash who is a farmer having field Gut No.764 of village Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur. On 17.2.2009 he applied with the opponents for electric connection of 7.5 HP and paid Rs.7170/- as per quotation supplied by the opponents. The same amount was received by the office of opponents on 3.3.2009. It is submitted by complainant that as opponents had given assurance to give electric connection he prepared 10 acres of his land for plantation of sugarcane. But despite his repeated oral request and notice dated 3.5.2010 in writing, the opponents did not give any response.
According to complainant as per the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Electric Act 2003 it was obligatory on the part of opponents to provide electric connection within 30 days after receipt of application and if not supplied electric connection within the stipulated period of 30 days, non-applicants are liable to pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day for such default. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents filed consumer complaint claiming compensation at Rs.8 lakhs towards loss sustained in the agriculture income and also penalty of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of application till the date of giving electric connection.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponents appeared before the Forum and by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-
They did not dispute that on 17.2.2009 complainant applied for electric connection and paid connection charges as per quotation. However, they have denied that complainant is their consumer. It is 2 F.A..No.:685/2014 (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent Shri.Prakash Raut as the complainant)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mr.Prakash who is a farmer having field Gut No.764 of village Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur. On 17.2.2009 he applied with the opponents for electric connection of 7.5 HP and paid Rs.7170/- as per quotation supplied by the opponents. The same amount was received by the office of opponents on 3.3.2009. It is submitted by complainant that as opponents had given assurance to give electric connection he prepared 10 acres of his land for plantation of sugarcane. But despite his repeated oral request and notice dated 3.5.2010 in writing, the opponents did not give any response.
According to complainant as per the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Electric Act 2003 it was obligatory on the part of opponents to provide electric connection within 30 days after receipt of application and if not supplied electric connection within the stipulated period of 30 days, non-applicants are liable to pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day for such default. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents filed consumer complaint claiming compensation at Rs.8 lakhs towards loss sustained in the agriculture income and also penalty of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of application till the date of giving electric connection.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponents appeared before the Forum and by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-
They did not dispute that on 17.2.2009 complainant applied for electric connection and paid connection charges as per quotation. However, they have denied that complainant is their consumer. It is 2 F.A..No.:685/2014 (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent Shri.Prakash Raut as the complainant)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Mr.Prakash who is a farmer having field Gut No.764 of village Murud, Tq. & Dist.Latur. On 17.2.2009 he applied with the opponents for electric connection of 7.5 HP and paid Rs.7170/- as per quotation supplied by the opponents. The same amount was received by the office of opponents on 3.3.2009. It is submitted by complainant that as opponents had given assurance to give electric connection he prepared 10 acres of his land for plantation of sugarcane. But despite his repeated oral request and notice dated 3.5.2010 in writing, the opponents did not give any response.
According to complainant as per the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Electric Act 2003 it was obligatory on the part of opponents to provide electric connection within 30 days after receipt of application and if not supplied electric connection within the stipulated period of 30 days, non-applicants are liable to pay penalty of Rs.1000/- per day for such default. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents filed consumer complaint claiming compensation at Rs.8 lakhs towards loss sustained in the agriculture income and also penalty of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of application till the date of giving electric connection.
3. In response to the complaint notice, opponents appeared before the Forum and by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-
They did not dispute that on 17.2.2009 complainant applied for electric connection and paid connection charges as per quotation. However, they have denied that complainant is their consumer. It is 3 F.A..No.:685/2014 contended that prior to the date of giving electric connection complainant was not their consumer and therefore complaint claiming compensation and penalty charges is not maintainable. They have denied that despite repeated request of the complainant they did not provide the electric connection. It is submitted that as per rules of the MSEDCL it was obligatory on the part of complainant to submit test report but he failed to submit test report till 31.8.2010. Thereafter on 31.11.2011 they have provided electric connection. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponents committed deficiency in service by not providing electric connection to the complainant within 30 days after completion of all formalities submitting test report etc. and therefore they are liable to pay penalty charges for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. We heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellants/opponents and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also written notes of argument submitted by Adv.N.B.Jadhav appearing for respondent/complainant. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, electricity bills, quotation form, CPL, notice etc. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant Prakash as well as his counsel Mr.N.B.Jadhav as they remained absent at the time of final hearing.
6. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponents that they have supplied electric connection to the complainant immediately after receiving test report on 31.8.2010 from the complainant and not committed breach of provision of Section 43 of Electricity Act are not 3 F.A..No.:685/2014 contended that prior to the date of giving electric connection complainant was not their consumer and therefore complaint claiming compensation and penalty charges is not maintainable. They have denied that despite repeated request of the complainant they did not provide the electric connection. It is submitted that as per rules of the MSEDCL it was obligatory on the part of complainant to submit test report but he failed to submit test report till 31.8.2010. Thereafter on 31.11.2011 they have provided electric connection. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponents committed deficiency in service by not providing electric connection to the complainant within 30 days after completion of all formalities submitting test report etc. and therefore they are liable to pay penalty charges for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. We heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellants/opponents and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also written notes of argument submitted by Adv.N.B.Jadhav appearing for respondent/complainant. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, electricity bills, quotation form, CPL, notice etc. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant Prakash as well as his counsel Mr.N.B.Jadhav as they remained absent at the time of final hearing.
6. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponents that they have supplied electric connection to the complainant immediately after receiving test report on 31.8.2010 from the complainant and not committed breach of provision of Section 43 of Electricity Act are not 3 F.A..No.:685/2014 contended that prior to the date of giving electric connection complainant was not their consumer and therefore complaint claiming compensation and penalty charges is not maintainable. They have denied that despite repeated request of the complainant they did not provide the electric connection. It is submitted that as per rules of the MSEDCL it was obligatory on the part of complainant to submit test report but he failed to submit test report till 31.8.2010. Thereafter on 31.11.2011 they have provided electric connection. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponents committed deficiency in service by not providing electric connection to the complainant within 30 days after completion of all formalities submitting test report etc. and therefore they are liable to pay penalty charges for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. We heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellants/opponents and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also written notes of argument submitted by Adv.N.B.Jadhav appearing for respondent/complainant. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, electricity bills, quotation form, CPL, notice etc. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant Prakash as well as his counsel Mr.N.B.Jadhav as they remained absent at the time of final hearing.
6. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponents that they have supplied electric connection to the complainant immediately after receiving test report on 31.8.2010 from the complainant and not committed breach of provision of Section 43 of Electricity Act are not 3 F.A..No.:685/2014 contended that prior to the date of giving electric connection complainant was not their consumer and therefore complaint claiming compensation and penalty charges is not maintainable. They have denied that despite repeated request of the complainant they did not provide the electric connection. It is submitted that as per rules of the MSEDCL it was obligatory on the part of complainant to submit test report but he failed to submit test report till 31.8.2010. Thereafter on 31.11.2011 they have provided electric connection. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponents committed deficiency in service by not providing electric connection to the complainant within 30 days after completion of all formalities submitting test report etc. and therefore they are liable to pay penalty charges for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 as per provisions of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
5. We heard Adv.S.N.Tandale for appellants/opponents and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also written notes of argument submitted by Adv.N.B.Jadhav appearing for respondent/complainant. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, electricity bills, quotation form, CPL, notice etc. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant Prakash as well as his counsel Mr.N.B.Jadhav as they remained absent at the time of final hearing.
6. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponents that they have supplied electric connection to the complainant immediately after receiving test report on 31.8.2010 from the complainant and not committed breach of provision of Section 43 of Electricity Act are not 4 F.A..No.:685/2014 disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponents have committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 by not giving electric connection to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of test report or not?
7. Mr.Tandale advocate appearing for the appellants/opponents pointing out from the copy of CPL submitted that after receiving teste report from complainant electric connection was given to the complainant on 15.12.2010. But inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly mentioned in the written version that electric connection was given to the complainant on 31.11.2011. Further it is submitted that after receiving test report from complainant on 31.8.2010 electric connection is given to the complainant on 15.12.2010 as per sequence of the applications which were pending with the opponents. But complainant has falsely alleged that opponents have deliberately avoided to give connection etc.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr.Jadhav advocate appearing for the complainant in his written notes of argument that though the complainant has submitted test report on 31.8.2010 no electric connection was given till 31.11.2011 and therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned order directing opponents to pay to the complainant penalty charges Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 etc.
9. On perusal of copy of written version submitted by opponents it manifests that opponents have specifically stated in para 2 of their written version that electric connection is given to the complainant on 31.11.2011 after completion of requisite formalities which are shown as per rules and regulations of MSEDCL. Therefore contention of Adv.Tandale for the opponents that inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly 4 F.A..No.:685/2014 disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponents have committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 by not giving electric connection to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of test report or not?
7. Mr.Tandale advocate appearing for the appellants/opponents pointing out from the copy of CPL submitted that after receiving teste report from complainant electric connection was given to the complainant on 15.12.2010. But inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly mentioned in the written version that electric connection was given to the complainant on 31.11.2011. Further it is submitted that after receiving test report from complainant on 31.8.2010 electric connection is given to the complainant on 15.12.2010 as per sequence of the applications which were pending with the opponents. But complainant has falsely alleged that opponents have deliberately avoided to give connection etc.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr.Jadhav advocate appearing for the complainant in his written notes of argument that though the complainant has submitted test report on 31.8.2010 no electric connection was given till 31.11.2011 and therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned order directing opponents to pay to the complainant penalty charges Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 etc.
9. On perusal of copy of written version submitted by opponents it manifests that opponents have specifically stated in para 2 of their written version that electric connection is given to the complainant on 31.11.2011 after completion of requisite formalities which are shown as per rules and regulations of MSEDCL. Therefore contention of Adv.Tandale for the opponents that inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly 4 F.A..No.:685/2014 disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponents have committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 by not giving electric connection to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of test report or not?
7. Mr.Tandale advocate appearing for the appellants/opponents pointing out from the copy of CPL submitted that after receiving teste report from complainant electric connection was given to the complainant on 15.12.2010. But inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly mentioned in the written version that electric connection was given to the complainant on 31.11.2011. Further it is submitted that after receiving test report from complainant on 31.8.2010 electric connection is given to the complainant on 15.12.2010 as per sequence of the applications which were pending with the opponents. But complainant has falsely alleged that opponents have deliberately avoided to give connection etc.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr.Jadhav advocate appearing for the complainant in his written notes of argument that though the complainant has submitted test report on 31.8.2010 no electric connection was given till 31.11.2011 and therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned order directing opponents to pay to the complainant penalty charges Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 etc.
9. On perusal of copy of written version submitted by opponents it manifests that opponents have specifically stated in para 2 of their written version that electric connection is given to the complainant on 31.11.2011 after completion of requisite formalities which are shown as per rules and regulations of MSEDCL. Therefore contention of Adv.Tandale for the opponents that inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly 4 F.A..No.:685/2014 disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponents have committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 by not giving electric connection to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of test report or not?
7. Mr.Tandale advocate appearing for the appellants/opponents pointing out from the copy of CPL submitted that after receiving teste report from complainant electric connection was given to the complainant on 15.12.2010. But inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly mentioned in the written version that electric connection was given to the complainant on 31.11.2011. Further it is submitted that after receiving test report from complainant on 31.8.2010 electric connection is given to the complainant on 15.12.2010 as per sequence of the applications which were pending with the opponents. But complainant has falsely alleged that opponents have deliberately avoided to give connection etc.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr.Jadhav advocate appearing for the complainant in his written notes of argument that though the complainant has submitted test report on 31.8.2010 no electric connection was given till 31.11.2011 and therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned order directing opponents to pay to the complainant penalty charges Rs.1000/- per day for the period from 31.8.2010 to 30.11.2011 etc.
9. On perusal of copy of written version submitted by opponents it manifests that opponents have specifically stated in para 2 of their written version that electric connection is given to the complainant on 31.11.2011 after completion of requisite formalities which are shown as per rules and regulations of MSEDCL. Therefore contention of Adv.Tandale for the opponents that inadvertently counsel who was appearing before the Forum on behalf of opponents wrongly 5 F.A..No.:685/2014 mentioned in the written version that connection was released on 31.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2010 is being not sustainable, cannot be accepted. When the opponents have submitted written version with their signature and also verification it cannot be accepted that inadvertently their counsel wrongly shown such date of releasing electric connection. However, Adv.Tandale for the opponent tried to justify his submission relying on the copy of CPL. But recitals in copy of CPL are being contrary to the pleading of the opponent showing date of releasing of electric connection on 15.12.2010 cannot be accepted. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that after completion of formalities by the complainant opponent failed to release the electric connection and thereby committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of Electricity Act 2003 and holding opponents liable to pay penalty charges in accordance with the provision of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act 2003. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
5 F.A..No.:685/2014
mentioned in the written version that connection was released on 31.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2010 is being not sustainable, cannot be accepted. When the opponents have submitted written version with their signature and also verification it cannot be accepted that inadvertently their counsel wrongly shown such date of releasing electric connection. However, Adv.Tandale for the opponent tried to justify his submission relying on the copy of CPL. But recitals in copy of CPL are being contrary to the pleading of the opponent showing date of releasing of electric connection on 15.12.2010 cannot be accepted. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that after completion of formalities by the complainant opponent failed to release the electric connection and thereby committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of Electricity Act 2003 and holding opponents liable to pay penalty charges in accordance with the provision of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act 2003. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
5 F.A..No.:685/2014
mentioned in the written version that connection was released on 31.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2010 is being not sustainable, cannot be accepted. When the opponents have submitted written version with their signature and also verification it cannot be accepted that inadvertently their counsel wrongly shown such date of releasing electric connection. However, Adv.Tandale for the opponent tried to justify his submission relying on the copy of CPL. But recitals in copy of CPL are being contrary to the pleading of the opponent showing date of releasing of electric connection on 15.12.2010 cannot be accepted. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that after completion of formalities by the complainant opponent failed to release the electric connection and thereby committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of Electricity Act 2003 and holding opponents liable to pay penalty charges in accordance with the provision of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act 2003. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
5 F.A..No.:685/2014
mentioned in the written version that connection was released on 31.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2010 is being not sustainable, cannot be accepted. When the opponents have submitted written version with their signature and also verification it cannot be accepted that inadvertently their counsel wrongly shown such date of releasing electric connection. However, Adv.Tandale for the opponent tried to justify his submission relying on the copy of CPL. But recitals in copy of CPL are being contrary to the pleading of the opponent showing date of releasing of electric connection on 15.12.2010 cannot be accepted. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that after completion of formalities by the complainant opponent failed to release the electric connection and thereby committed breach of provision of Section 43(1) of Electricity Act 2003 and holding opponents liable to pay penalty charges in accordance with the provision of Section 43(3) of Electricity Act 2003. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane