JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J. —

1.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. One Ashwani Kumar, respondent herein had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the electric meter bearing No. 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 connection. On 2nd July, 2002, he had received a Memo from the Electricity Board stating that the said connection had a sanctioned load of 52.49 KW and it was required to be clubbed with electric connection in the name of Janak Raj bearing electric connection No. MS-32/580 with sanction load of 56.79 KW. Reply was submitted by him to the Memo wherein he had stated the above facts. It was further clarified that his property was separate and distinct from property possessed by Sudesh Mahajan and the electric connection in that premises was in the name of Janak Raj. They denied the cross wiring in the property or even that the connection was being commonly used by the parties. Thus, they contested the demand raised by the Electricity Board to the extent of Rs.3,28,216/-.

2.Similarly, in the other case Sudesh Mahajan had filed a complaint claiming a sale in favour of his predecessor in interest on 28th November, 1996. 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 not payable by any of the consumers namely Janak Raj and Kartari Devi or persons claiming through them. To challenge the same, complaints 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. The appeals were filed by the private complainants against the Electricity Board before the State Consumer District Redressal Commission, Punjab which came to be registered as Appeal No. 218 and 219 of 2004 respectively. Both these appeals came to be allowed by the State Forum and the demands raised were quashed. A further direction was issued that the amount deposited by the respondents, if any, under the impugned demand notice, the same shall be refunded with interest @ 9% per annum. The State Forum while referring to the documents of sale in favour of the respondents further held that a circular being CC No. 4 of 1997 issued by the Electricity Board on 8th January, 1997 dealt with the subject of running of more than one connection in the same premises. According to the circular, if there were two connections in the same premises they were required to be clubbed for the purposes of payment of tariff. However, the Competent Forum in appeal found that they were two distinct persons, owning distinct properties and were having independent electric connections. 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. The result of these two distinct properties was that they could not be termed as same premises under the relevant provisions and therefore, the demand raised was entirely unjustified. The Electricity Board filed appeals before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which were dismissed, vide Order dated 21st February, 2006. As already stated, it is a small order and it will be useful to refer to the same at this stage:

“Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. As per the Municipal record,