Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri Kamruddin H. Golwala vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 18 July, 2008

  
 
 
 
 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION



 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
COMMISSION
 

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
 

 
 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1316 OF 
2007                                   Date of filing : 20/10/2007
 

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 260 OF 2006           Date of 
order : 18/07/2008 
 

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOUTH MUMBAI
 

 
 

Shri Kamruddin H. Golwala
 

R/at flat No.204, Rabab Manzil, 
 

7th Nehru Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 
055.             Appellant/org. complainant
 

            V/s.
 

The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply
 

And Transport Undertaking 
 

Office at BEST Bhavan, Best Marg,
 

Mumbai  400 
001.                                                   Respondent/org. O.P.
 

 
             Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Honble President
                            Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Judicial Member

                           Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member             Present: Mr.V.K. Nair, Advocate for the appellant.

                           Mr.Ketkar, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                - : ORAL ORDER :-

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 21/09/2007 passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum, the org. complainant has come up in appeal.
We heard Mr.V.K. Nair, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant and Mr.Ketkar, Advocate for the respondent/org. O.P. We examined the correctness of the order under challenge.
The complainant is in occupation of three shop premises in the capacity of tenants.  The complainant inducted M/s.Vishal Industry as sub-tenant in Gala Nos.36 & 37.  Sub-tenancy was terminated and sub-tenant was asked to vacate the premises.  The sub-tenant refused to vacate the premises.  Therefore, suit for eviction was filed in the Honble High Court.  The Honble High Court decreed the suit.  The sub-tenant thereafter evicted the premises.  At the instance of tenant, electric supply was disconnected.  The sub-tenant was in arrears.  After disconnection, the tenant applied for reconnection.  The respondent asked the appellant/org. complainant to deposit arrears and thereafter electric supply was reconnected.  The tenant complied with the demand of the respondent under protest and deposited the entire arrears of sub-tenant.  After restoration of electric supply the tenant filed consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum and same has been dismissed.
There was dispute between the tenant and sub-tenant.  At the instance of tenant electric supply was disconnected and new connection was applied for.  The respondent asked to deposit arrears.  Accordingly arrears were deposited and thereafter new connection was given to the complainant.  The Forum below has rightly concluded that the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute raised in the complaint is not a consumer dispute.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Asking tenant to deposit arrears of sub-tenant cannot be said to be unfair trade practice.  We therefore hold that the impugned order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality.  No interference is called.  In the result, we pass the following order :-
                        -: ORDER :-
1.        

Appeal stands dismissed summarily.

2.         No order as to costs.

3.         Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

                                   
             (S. P. Lale)                            (P.N. 
Kashalkar)                    (B.B. Vagyani)
 

               Member                               
Judicial Member                      President
 

 
 

dd.