State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C. ... vs Mr.Gensidha Nagappa Durlekar on 5 January, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1549 OF 2007 Date of filing : 05/12/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.16/2007 Date of order : 05/01/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SOLAPUR @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.2096/2007 The Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. (Urban Division) Solapur Juni Mills Compound Solapur ..Appellant/org.O.P. v/s. Mr.Gensidha Nagappa Durlekar R/o.203/9, Raviwar peth Solapur Respondent/org.complainant Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member Present : Mr.S.S.Kalekar-Advocate for Appellant. Mr.S.Sakhare -Advocate for respondent O R D E R
Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.16/2007 decided on 9/10/2007, whereby while allowing the complaint, Forum below directed Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. (MSEDCo.) to immediately restore electricity supply of the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost, original O.P./ MSEDCo. has filed this appeal challenging the said judgement and award.
2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-
Complainant had applied for getting new electricity connection from the MSEDCo./O.P. He made application and also gave quotation. On 2/3/2006, he paid amount of Rs.2950/-. Thereafter he was given Consumer number and the meter was installed in his premises bearing no.234396. On 6/3/2006, electricity connection was started. After about 8-10 days, O.P. officials took away the electricity meter. When he approached higher officials, he was given letter dated 10/8/2006 that Mr.Durlekar was having Consumer No.0362732 and there was arrears of Rs.60,061/- and unless that amount of arrears is paid, the electricity connection would not be given. Complainant sent two notices, one dated 22/8/2006 and another dated 18/9/2006 to MSEDCo. requesting to restore the electricity connection. But no heed was given to his notices and therefore, he filed consumer complaint alleging wrongful disconnection of electricity supply and also claimed restoration of the same and claimed Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also cost.
3. O.P. filed its written statement and denied the consumer complaint. According to O.P., though complainant had asked for new electricity connection and deposited certain amount, when lineman of the O.P. went to the spot, he found that in the said house earlier electricity connection was given to the brother of the complainant, who was Mr.Sharanappa Nagappa Durlekar and he was having Consumer No.330240362732 and said electricity connection was disconnected permanently in January 1998, because of arrears of electricity charges. Arrears were to the tune of Rs.60,061/-. Therefore, complainant was told that he should clear the said arrears, then only he would be given new electricity connection. Complainant had given affidavit to MSEDCo. on 27/2/2006 and mentioned that he or his family members had not taken any electricity connection in any house and if at all, there was any arrear in the premises, they would pay the electricity dues of the MSEDCo. Relying on the said affidavit, quotation was given to the complainant and he was allowed to deposit quotation amount, but it was found that Mr.Sharanappa Nagappa Durlekar and complainant- Mr.Gensidha Nagappa Durlekar were staying together in the same house and therefore, new electricity connection was denied to him, unless he cleared the amount of Rs.60,061/-. MSEDCo. therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost, since on valid grounds electricity connection was refused to the complainant.
4. On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below hold MSEDCo. guilty of deficiency in service and passed impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, original O.P. has filed this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.S.S.Kalekar-Advocate for Appellant and Mr.S.Sakhare -Advocate for respondent.
6. We are finding that Mr.Gensidha Nagappa Durlekar and Mr.Sharanappa Nagappa Durlekar are family members of one family as per ration card. Ration card stood in the name of Mr.Arun Nagappa Durlekar, 203/9, Ravivar peth, Solapur, and thus two brothers amongst others are shown as family members. The helpers of the MSEDCo. informed MSEDCo. that meter of Mr.Sharanappa Nagappa Durlekar having Consumer No.0362732 was removed from 203/9, Ravivar peth, Solapur, because of arrears of electricity charges. So it would be clear that complainant and Mr.Sharanappa Nagappa Durlekar were joint family members. They reside in house no.203/9, Ravivar peth, Solapur and brother of the complainant had earlier taken electricity connection and it was discontinued permanently, because his brother had not paid huge arrears of Rs.60,061/-. MSEDCo. therefore rightly directed complainant to clear the said dues, so that he could be given new connection on his application as per quotation. Forum below did not consider this aspect in the right perspective and simply directed MSEDCo. to give connection to the complainant. Said order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be erroneous and bad in law. Owner or occupier of the building or premises in which new connection is sought to be taken has to clear the dues of the previous occupier or owner and MSEDCo. would be within its right to refuse the connection to anybody, if the said premises is having pre-existing electricity connection for which there were arrears of energy recoverable from previous owner or occupier. In this view of the matter, order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be patently illegal and bad in law and therefore, order passed by the District Consumer Forum will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint no.16/2007 stands dismissed.
4. Misc.
application stands disposed of.
5. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Judicial Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.