Tribunals and Commissions

B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LTD. vs Sushila Sharma

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 13 October 2004 · Citation: 2005 2 CPJ 91

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.D.Kapoor , Rumnita Mittal , Mahesh Chandra J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 369 words
1.

FEELING aggrieved of the order dated 3.7.2004 passed by the District Forum-III in Complaint Case No. 137/2004 whereby levy of misuse charges on electricity connection No. PM-001-136891/W865/DX as well as the bill from July 2000 to November 2003 were quashed with the direction to the appellant to raise fresh bills on registered DL No. 693 by giving adjustment of all the payments made to the appellant besides compensation of Rs. 2000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2.

THE contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent was not the registered consumer as the electricity connection in question was in the name of one Smt. Mohinder Jeet Kaur, and the premises in question were purchased by the respondent on 2.11.1986 on the basis of General Power of Attorney and as such there is no locus standi to seek relief as granted by the impugned order. Any person who purchases the premises by way of Power of Attorney has the status of actual consumer being purchaser of the property. Merely because the sale deed is not executed does not mean that the purchaser who has obtained the General Power of Attorney from the owner is not the consumer. We do not find any merit in this contention and affirm the findings of the District Forum in this regard. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the misuse charges from July 2000 to November 2003 were quashed solely on the ground that the show-cause notice which is mandatory before the levying of misuse charges was not given. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss the appeal but with liberty to the appellant to give show-cause notice for the relevant period to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard before any action is taken. Till this exercise is complete the impugned order shall continue to be in operation and complied with by the appellant forthwith. A copy of this order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal dismissed.