SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1611

ANOOP V.MOHTA, F.I.REBELLO
Awadesh S. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Tata Power Co. Ltd. – Respondent


F. I. REBELLO, J. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner had applied for electric connection from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 commissioned meter No.2759592 on the petitioner's premises on 3rd January. 2003 for connected load of 125 HP (93.25 KW). The petitioner started using electricity since 30th August, 2003. Bills for the period from 30th August, 2003 to 30th October, 2003 and also subsequent bills till November, 2005 were sent to the petitioner indicating multiplying factor of one. Respondent No.1 around November, 2003 during energy audit observed that petitioner was billed by applying incorrect multiplying factor since beginning, the correct multiplying factor being 40. Supplementary bill was preferred in January, 2006 for Rs.12,33,328/ - .

3. The petitioner contested the said bill by filing a complaint before Consumer Redressal Forum on 06.03.2006. On 25.03.2006 as the petitioner had not paid electricity dues in terms of the bill, respondent No.1 issued notice of disconnection but withdrew the same. On 05.05.2006 the Consumer Redressal Forum passed an order against petitioner against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top