National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vinayak Dashrath Bogam vs Geeta Dashrath Bogam & 4 Ors. on 12 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 705 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 20/01/2016 in Appeal No. 276/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. VINAYAK DASHRATH BOGAM R/O CTS NO. 1267, GANESH PRASAD, 76, TULSHIBAGWALE COLONY, SAHAKARNAGAR NO. 2, PUNE-9 MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GEETA DASHRATH BOGAM & 4 ORS. R/O CTS NO. 1267, GANESH PRASAD, 76, TULSHIBAGWALE COLONY, SAHAKARNAGAR NO. 2, PUNE-9 MAHARASHTRA 2. MSEB LTD. RASTA PETH THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MSEB LTD. RASTA PETH PUNE-411011 MAHARASHTRA 3. DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MSEB LTD. SWARGATE, SUB DIVISION SWARGATE PUNE MAHARASHTRA 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MSEB LTD. PADMAVATI DIVISION, SANGAM SOCIETY PUNE-SATARA ROAD, PUNE MAHARASHTRA 5. ASS. ENGINEER, MSEB LTD. LAXMI NAGAR DIVISION, SWAR GATE SUB DIVISION PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Deeplaxmi Deshmukh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Apr 2016 ORDER
1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal against the order of District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.289/2012 has preferred this revision petition.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner is step-son of respondent No.1 Smt. Geeta Dashrath Bogam. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition against respondent No.1 in respect of the premises in which the petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing. The civil Court decreed said suit against which the appeal is pending. It may be noted that during the pendency of said suit respondent No.1 filed a consumer complaint against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and its officials, namely, respondents No.2 to 5 seeking shifting of the electricity meter installed in the premises to a secure place besides compensation for deficiency in service. Respondents No.2 to 5 did not put in appearance after the service of notice of complaint.
3. The District Forum on the basis of record made available allowed the complaint and directed the respondents No.2 to 5 to shift the electricity meter as per the request of the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and mental harassment besides cost of Rs.1000/-.
4. After the shifting of the electricity meter in furtherance of the order of the District Forum the petitioner who was not a party to the consumer complaint filed an appeal challenging the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing of appeal on the premise that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the consumer forum and he came to know about the order passed by the District Forum only on 26.4.2014 when the meter was shifted. Thereafter he applied for certified copy of the order and after the receipt of copy he filed the appeal.
5. The State Commission vide impugned order took the view that the appeal could not be maintained as it was a case of shifting of meter from one place to another in the same building. State Commission also noted that the petitioner had one electricity meter in his name in the same premises and also declined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned order has preferred this revision petition. It is argued that the State Commission committed a grave error in ignoring the merits of the case. Expanding on the argument counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 obtained the order of District forum by abuse of process of law without impleading the petitioner as a party to the consumer complaint. It is further contended that the State Commission has erred in observing that in view of the decree passed by the civil Court and observation made in the judgment by the civil Court there was no need to entertain the appeal against shifting of meter from one place to another in the same premises.
7. On careful consideration of record we do not find merit in the revision petition. Undisputedly the petitioner was not a party to the consumer dispute. Therefore, the petitioner could not have maintained the appeal before the State Commission unless he could show that he had some interest in the electricity meter which has been shifted pursuant to the order of the District Forum. Petitioner has placed on record copy of the letter of the Electricity Distribution Company dated 10.6.2011 addressed to respondent No.1. On reading of this letter we find that by this letter Electricity Distribution Company informed the respondent No.1 that the electricity load of 7 kilowatt requested by the respondent No.1 has been sanctioned. The relevant part of the aforesaid letter is reproduced as under: -
"In accordance with the delegation of power as per the commercial circular No.30, dt.01.03.2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer (O & M) is empowered to sanction & release of connection of motive power load of any category upto 20HP to be re-delegated, where only service line is required from nearest & also verification of all technical feasibility & needs in infrastructure.
The statement of load sanction is as follows:
Sr. No. Name & Address of consumer Load required Purpose 1 Gita Dashrath Bogum 7 kw Residential 170012749301 Sanction No.Dy EE/SWG/T/LSR/Laxminagar/R-15/11-12; Dt.10/6/2011 DTC Code-4605303 Name of DTC-T/F-Tulshibagwale Colony.
DTC Energy Loss-
1) As per MERC order No.MERC/Case 70 of 2005 (Comply)/1970 Dt.26.09.06, service line charges are not to be recovered from the prospective consumer."
8. On reading of the above it is clear that respondent No.1 Geeta Dashrath Bogam has been described as the consumer in respect of the electricity connection. The petitioner nowhere in his revision petition has made a specific allegation that he was the consumer qua said electricity connection. Since the petitioner had no interest in the electricity connection which as per discussion above was in the name of respondent No.1 he could not have filed the appeal against the order of the District Forum in the proceedings in which he was not even a party. If for the sake of argument it is assumed that the petitioner had interest in the electricity connection as a co-consumer then also if he had any grievance with the shifting of the electricity meter without his knowledge or permission, his remedy was to file appropriate proceedings against the electricity distribution company instead of filing an appeal against the order to which he was not a party. He could have resisted the shifting of the shifting of the electricity meter, also could have approached the civil Court for stay alleging his right in the electricity connection. This, however, is not the case. In view of above facts, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER