The suit for recovery of Rs. 83,140/- regarding non-deposit of bill was filed before the learned Gas Utility Court. On the other hand, respondent also challen ged the validity of the amount of bill and the Gas Utility Court vide a consolidated judgment dated, 30.04.2019 dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the suit of the- respondent.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
3. It is established from the record that the respondent's meter was installed at his premises for domestic use, whereas disputed bill for the particular month was issued charging him commerci al tariff. Before issuing/charging him commercial tariff neither any notice informing its use by the consumer for commercial purpose was sent to him nor any report prepared by the checking Inspector showing the use of gas for comm ercial activities was brought on record necessary to charge the commercial tarif f.
It is established law that if any consumer using any gas/electricity , other than provided mechanism or misusing by tampering/slowing the meter he is liable to be charged according to rules/regulatio ns but before preparing/issuing detection bill he must have been provided opportunity of hearing besides confronting collected incriminating evidence regarding misuse of gas. Record was silent with regard to incriminating evidence involving the respondent. No document was placed on record to substantiate charging of commercial tariff, therefore, the learned Gas Utility Court after examining all these aspects rightly rejected claim of the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondent. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference; hence this appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.