JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent applied to the petitioner for an electricity connection in the residential flat occupied by him. Since the connection was not provided, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint alleging therein that at the instance of the petitioner, he had deposited a sum of Rs.3,200/- with them on 24.09.2015 but the connection had not been released to him. He therefore, sought release of the connection with compensation etc. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which interalia stated in its reply that though the complainant had submitted an application for grant of electricity connection on 24.09.2015, no demand notice had been issued to them nor had they given any connection to the complainant. It was also pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer of the petitioner. 3. The District Forum having allowed the Consumer Complaint and having directed release of the connection alongwith compensation and cost of litigation, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 4. As noted earlier, the case of the petitioner in the written version was that neither the connection was sanctioned nor any demand was raised upon the complainant. The case of the complainant on the other hand was that he had deposited a sum of Rs.3,200/- at the instance of the petitioner. In the absence of any demand notice or sanction of the electricity connection, it cannot be accepted that the amount of Rs.3,200/- was deposited by the complainant at the instance of the petitioner, which is a Government company engaged in distribution of electricity in Rajasthan. Therefore, the inevitable inference would be that the complainant of his own, deposited the amount of Rs.3,200/- with the petitioner. 5. The learnd counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of the District Forum, they had issued a demand letter dated 18.08.2016 to the complainant requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs.84,969/- but the said amount has not been deposited. He also submits that a temporary connection in the meanwhile, has been provided to the complainant. However, the electricity charges payable on the basis of the temporary connection are much higher than the electricity charges payable on a regular connection. The complainant therefore, wants a regular electricity connection in his name. 6. A perusal of the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity, 2004, pursuant to amendment of RERC (Electricity Supply Code and Connected Matters) Regulations, 2004 dated 06.09.2013, filed by the petitioner, would show that in case of a building complex/large building, if the estimated designed demand calculated on the basis of covered area is more than 50 KVA, then the owner/builder/developer/group of consumers might install transformer and associated equipments within the building complex/large building, of appropriate capacity. It also gives an option to the owner/builder/developer/group of consumers to get the said work done through the petitioner at their cost. In the present case, neither the transformer of appropriate capacity has been installed by the owner/builder/developer/group of consumers, nor have they requested the petitioner to install the same at their cost. Therefore, the petitioner, in my opinion, is justified in raising the demand of Rs.84,969/- before issuing a regular connection. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that regular connection has been provided by the petitioner to the occupants of other residential flats in the same project in another tower without insisting upon payment of such charges and there is no reason why a differential treatment should be meted out to the complainant. The submission made by the learned counsel is genuine and therefore, the petitioner should not insist upon the complainant depositing the amount of Rs.84,969/- if it has provided regular connection to the other occupants in the same complex of six towers without insisting upon such amount. 8. The Revision Petition and the Consumer Complaint are therefore, disposed of in terms of the following directions: (i) If regular connection has been provided by the petitioner to other occupants of residential flats in the same complex of six towers without requiring them to pay the cost of installing the transformer of appropriate capacity, it shall convert the temporary connection already provided to the complainant into a regular connection. (ii) If no regular connection in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the complainant has been provided, the petitioner would convert the temporary connection provided to the complainant into a regular connection only on the payment of the aforesaid demand of Rs.84,969/-. On such payment, the complainant shall be entitled to recover proportionate charges from the occupants of the other residential flats in the complex of six towers. (iii) No compensation or cost of litigation would be payable in the facts and circumstances of the case. | 
