Complainant/respondent had obtained an electricity connection bearing No.MS/21/0293L-K and was paying his bills regularly.   On 8.7.2006, petitioner charged Rs.1,80,000/- under the head of sundry charges and the consumption charges were shown as Rs.2,236/-.  The total amount payable was shown as Rs.1,82,236/-. 

          According to the petitioner, the respondent was using his connection for commercial purposes, as he rented the shop to Sonia Cable, which was running its office from the said shop.  The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was charged as pole rent used by the complainant for supporting TV cable as per the sales Circular No. 1/2002, 32/2000 and 32/2004.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the plea that the respondent had let out the shop to Sonia Cables.  That it had also failed to prove that the respondent was supporting the TV cable on the pole outside the shop.  District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the demand of Rs.1,80,000/-.  Petitioner was directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,93,085/-  along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till realization. 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.  State Commission has endorsed the findings recorded by the District Forum.

          Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that the respondent had let out the shop to Sonia Cables or that the commercial activity was going on in the premises for which the connection had been issued.  He relies upon the checking report of its officials or the Notice issued to the respondent.  The checking report or the Notice issued to the respondent by itself do not prove that the shop had been let out to Sonia Cable or commercial activity was going on in the premises for which the connection had been given.  Fora below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent was using the connection for commercial purposes.  Dismissed.