AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant claims to be a registered public sector undertaking having it''s registered office at A-27 Nirala Nagar, Lucknow and it''s factory and mines are situate at Chandak (District Pithoragarh). THE factory was allowed the electric load of 1000 K. V.A. per month but on account of strike in the factory and on account labour obligation. THE required production of the factory could not be achieved. This on account the claimant suffered loss and found difficulties in paying bills for 1000 K. V.A. electric load. On 20.3.86 he prayed for reduction of load from 1000 K.V.A. to 600 K. V.A. THE claimant also sent a reminder on this and also submitted B and L forms by letter dated 10.9.86, THE case of the complainant is that inspite of prayer for reduction of electric load, the Electricity Board has not passed any orders. It has been stated in the complaint that on 4th March, 1987, the complainant''s received a letter dated 8.3.87 and it has been mentioned that letter dated 20.3.86 is not traceable in the office of the Electricity Deptt. and they requested for the photostat copy of the said letter and the revised B and L forms. THE complainant complied with this directions by letter dated 10.3.87. Both the grievance of the complainant is that no action has been taken on the letters and the claimant had to deposit Rs. 320352.65 paisa for the period from 1.4.86 to 31.5.87 without any fault of the complainant. THE grievance of the complainant that inspite of protest of opposite party the amount has not been returned so far. THE complainant states that inspite of representation by him to the Electricity Board for the refund of the amount illegally realised it has not been refunded.
THE order sheet of the case indicates that the opposite party did not put in appearance and case proceeded against him Electricity Dept. Ex-parte. We have examined the record of the case, we find no justification on the part of the opposite party is not listening to the grievance of the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, it was expected that the opposite party would furnish reply to the complainant for claiming such a huge amount. We accordingly direct the opposite party to intimate to the complainant. The basis on which the amount was claimed. The complainant be informed of the above by 31.7.1993 by a speaking order. In case the Opposite Party does not furnish it''s reply to be demand money by the complainant would be entitled to the return of amount deposited in excess after 31st July, 1993. The complainant would be then also entitled to the excess amount alongwith on payment of 10% per annum as interest.
The complaint is decided in the manner indicated above. Complaint decided as indicated.