Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 20.7.2010 passed by Electricity Ombudsman confirming order dated 18.2.2010 of District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum awarding damages of Rs. 9095/- at the rate of Rs. 85/- per day for 114 days in accordance with paragraph 7.7.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2005’).

3. It appears that respondent No. 4 applied for an electric connection at premises 8/56-C, Arya Nagar, Kanpur but the electric connection was not released. In the situation, respondent No. 4 approached District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCGRF’) in Complaint No. 55 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 29.7.2009 observing as under :

^^ifjoknh ,oa dsLdks ds }kjk izLrqr lHkh vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k rFkk muds i{kksa dks Hkh lquk x;kA Qksje ds le{k izsf"kr Q~ySV dh jftLV~h ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd cgqeaftyk Hkou 84 oxZ ehVj ¼100 oxZ xt½ ds IykV ij cuk;k x;k gSA jftLV~h ds i`"B la0 10 esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd fcYMj }kjk Hkou dk uD’kk ds0Mh0,0 ls LohÑr Iyku ds vuqlkj cuk;k x;k A jftLV~h ds izFke i`"B ij mYys[k gS fd cgqeafty Hkou dk dqy vkPNkfnr {ks=Qy 356-07 oxZ ehVj gS fo|qr iznk; lafgrk 2005 dh /kkjk 4-9 ds vuqlkj ,dy fcUnq ij fo|qr la;kstu u;s ?kjsyw la;kstu] cgqeaftyh Hkouksa dkyksfu;ksa dks 25 ds0MCyw0 ls vf/kd Hkkj ds lkFk iznku fd;k tk;sxkA ysfdu] ;g O;fDrxr la;kstu ds fy, ykxw djus ls O;fDrxr Lokeh dks fucZfU/kr ugha djsxk vkSj vuqkfIr/kkjh ,y0Vh0 ij ,sls vkosnd dks la;kstu LohÑr djsxkA blh /kkjk ds vUrxZr fn;s x;s fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj ftl cgqeaftys Hkou dk vkPNkfnr {ks=Qy 500 oxZ ehVj ls vf/kd vFkok fo|qr Hkkj dh ekax 25 fd0ok0 ls vfèkd gks] ogkWa ij gh ifjorZd yxk;s tkus dh vko’;drk gSA

vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;Urk us ifjoknh ls la;kstu gsrq izkFkZuk &i= izkIr gksuk Lohdkj ugha fd;k ijUrq izcU/k funs’kd ds ek/;e ls izkFkZuk&i= izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA Qksje ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr gksus rd vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;Urk }kjk ifjoknh dks mlds izkFkZuk i= ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ leqfpr mRrj ugha fn;k x;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd u;s la;kstu fuxZr djus esa foHkkxh; izfdz;k ikjn’khZ ugha gSA

dsLdks ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kj fo|qr iznk; lafgrk 2005 dh /kkjk 4-6 ¼,p½ dk ikyu u dj ifjoknh dks vuko’;d ijs’kku fd;k x;kA iwoZ esa rhu la;kstu blh ifjoknh dks 5 fd0ok0 Hkkj dk LFkkbZ la;kstu fuxZr fd;k tk;A rRi’pkr iwoZ esa fuxZr vLFkkbZ la;kstu lekIr dj fn;k tk;A

vkns’k dk ikyu ,d ekg ds vUnj lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;A**

4. The petitioners still did not comply with the said order, and, instead released an electric connection to respondent No. 4 only on 28.8.2009 and that too without installing any meter. The respondent No. 4 complained that despite repeated demand meter was not installed. He approached DCGRF vide Complaint dated 28.11.2009 seeking a direction that since the petitioners have violated the provisions of Supply Code, 2005, appropriate action be taken against them directing them for installation of meter and award damages in accordance with Supply Code, 2005.

5. The above complaint was contested by petitioners. They submitted reply dated 21.1.2010 whereafter Complaint No. 128 of 2009 was decided finally vide order dated 18.2.2010 and DCGRF awarded damages of Rs. 9095/- to petitioners in accordance with paragraph 7.7.2 of Supply Code, 2005. In the meantime and during the pendency of said complaint, meter was installed at the premises of respondent No. 4 on 21.12.2009.

6. The petitioners aggrieved by aforesaid award of damages filed an application/appeal before Electricity Ombudsman under Regulation 8.2. of UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) and Electricity Ombudsman Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation 2007’) which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 20.7.2010.

7. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the meter was not available hence electricity connection was