The main legal point established in the judgment is that demands made by the electricity board must comply with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, including Section 56.

ORDER

R.C. Kathuria, President - Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad whereby the amount of Rs. 18,825 added as sundry charges in the bill Ex.C-2 as well as mentioned in the notice No. 2530 dated 28.8.2006 for the period 17.3.2007 to 17.4.2007 payable on 17.5.2007 issued to the respondent-complainant has been set aside and direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties not to recover the said amount from the complainant and also not to disconnect the electric supply from her tubewell. In addition Rs. 500 has been awarded as litigation expenses.

2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been provided with electric connection for her tubewell, bearing account No. NJP 15384, JM 53/2060 located in Village Jamalpur Shekha, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. The complainant had applied for installation of transformer at her tubewell under the dedicated scheme to the opposite parties in the year 2001 for which she had deposited Rs. 10,000 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties had calculated the estimated amount of Rs. 54,770 and by giving benefit of Rs. 39,975 balance amount of Rs. 14,795 was payable by the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a notice bearing Memo No. 2530 dated 28.8.2006 as well as bill Ex.C-2 for the period 17.3.2007 to 17.4.2007 payable on 17.5.2007 whereby demand of Rs. 18,825 was made as sundry charges. In addition to the amount of Rs. 14,795 mentioned above, the opposite parties also claimed Rs. 3,500 as the cost of the meter and Rs. 350 on account of extension of load. Aggrieved by the demand made the complainant filed the present complaint alleging that she had deposited the amount Rs. 10,000 as demanded from her under the dedicated scheme and the transformer was installed at her tubewell after completing formalities and no amount was due against her, whereas the above stated bill Ex.C-2 and notice dated 28.8.2006 had been issued to her without affording any opportunity of hearing and she had been condemned unheard. Accordingly, it was prayed that the demand made in the bill Ex.C-2 and notice dated 28.8.2006 be set aside and direction be given to the opposite parties not to recover the aforesaid amount and not disconnect the electric supply of her tubewell. In addition, she claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. They justified the demand made on the basis of discrepancy pointed out by the Audit Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Taking into consideration the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint on two grounds. Firstly, that when she was issued the notice bearing Memo No. 2530 dated 28.8.2006 and bill Ex. C-2 for the period 17.3.2007 to 17.4.2007 payable on 17.5.2007, no opportunity of hearing was given to her and for that reason the demand made could not be sustained being illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the impugned amount could not be recovered from her. For coming to the conclusion reliance was placed on the observations made in case of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Birmaram, (2004) 4 CPJ 59, wherein it was held that the additional demand made on the basis of report of auditor without disclosing basis for raising the demand of disputed amount could not be permitted under the rules. Seconly, that the demand in question had been made in the above stated notice after the expiry of more than three years which claim is barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003). Accordingly, directions noticed above were given in the order dated 6.12.2007 of the District Forum. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the appellant-opposite parties.

3. Learned Counsel representing the appel