State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Engineer,M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. ... vs Rajendra Ramdas Hole on 16 September, 2011
1 F.A.No.:201/2007
Date of filing :15.03.2007
Date of order :16.09.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :201 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:261 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :JALGAON.
Assistant Engineer,
M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. Urban Sub Division -II,
Old Power House, Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent )
VERSUS
Rajendra Ramdas Hole,
R/o Krushi Colony,
Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant )
CORAM : Mr.D.N.Admane, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.K.N.Patil for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.A.Pradhan for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd., Jalgaon challenges in this appeal order passed by Dist.Forum,Jalgaon on 21.2.2007 in complaint case No.261/06.
2. The facts of complaint are as under.
Complainant Rajendra Ramdas Hole resident of Jalgaon is owner of shop No.6, Geetashankar Market, Jalgaon. He was regularly 2 F.A.No.:201/2007 paying electricity bills. Complainant purchased said shop in the year 1996 from Yuvraj Manga Nikumbh. Therefore electricity connection is still in the name of Yuvraj Nikumbh. It was not transferred in the name of complainant. In Feb.2006 complainant applied for change of meter. meter was changed. Thereafter complainant allotted his shop to Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Credit Society on lease. Said Patsanstha also found that meter was causing some problem therefore they also applied for installation of new meter. Therefore new meter was installed. On 9.5.2006 complainant received bill of Rs.79,205/- on the count of theft of electricity. Therefore complainant approached to Forum for quashing and setting aside the bill.
3. Opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim, firstly on the ground that complainant is not consumer of MSEDCL as electricity connection is not in the name of complainant. It is further submitted by MSEDCL that after inspection of meter it was found that theft is committed. Therefore bills issued by following proper procedure.
4. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum restrained appellant from disconnecting electricity and also directed appellant not to recover disputed bills.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum,Jalgaon, MSEDCL came in appeal.
6. Notices issued to both the parties. Adv.Shri.K.N.Patil appeared for appellant and Adv.Shri.S.A.Pradhan appeared for respondent. Adv.Shri.K.N.Patil submitted that at the outset it is to be considered that complainant has no locus-standi to file complaint because electric connection is not in the name of complainant. He further submitted that shop for which the bill was issued was purchased by complainant in the year 1996 but till today electric meter is standing 3 F.A.No.:201/2007 in the name of previous owner of shop i.e. Yuvraj Nikumbh. It is further submitted by Adv.Patil that on the inspection it was found that meter seal No.084453 was broken and after testing the meter it was found that meter was tampered by the complainant. Complainant himself admitted said tampering and wrote letter to Junior Engineer on 21.2.2006. According to said letter complainant accepted liability if meter found tampered.
7. Adv.Shri.S.A.Pradhan for respondent submitted that as complainant purchased shop from Yuvraj Nikumbh he is beneficiary as held by Dist.Forum. It is further submitted by Adv.Pradhan that said shop was leased out by the complainant to one Patsanstha. Thereafter bill in respect of theft was issued. Therefore complainant is not liable to pay the said bill.
8. We heard both the counsels at length and perused the record. We are to consider whether complainant is consumer. Complainant purchased the shop in the year 1996 from Yuvraj Nikumbh. Even after purchase till today electric connection is standing in the name of said Yuvraj Nikumbh. Therefore in our view complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as there is no privity of contract between complainant and appellant. Complainant did not bother to get transferred electric connection in his name though he purchased the shop. It is stated by respondent/complainant that he allotted said shop to one Patsanstha on lease. In that respect also complainant is not entitled to file the complaint against MSEDCL.
9. We are relying on "Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Ors. - Vs- Goverdhan Prasad Dhurandhar" reported in I(2010) CPJ 63 wherein it is held by Chhattisgarh State Commission that "no application made by respondents for change in the name, complainant is not consumer. Complainant enjoying electricity through connection which was standing in the name of dead person. No application made 4 F.A.No.:201/2007 by respondent/org.complainant for change in name of consumer or mutation of his name in place of earlier owner. Therefore he is not entitle to any relief".
10. In Ashok Kumar -Vs- SDO, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2004 NCJ 15(NC), it held by National Commission that "electric connection remained in the name of earlier owner. Therefore complainant not having any contractual relation with Electricity Board-not a consumer".
11. In our view in the present case electric meter is not in the name of complainant. There is no privity of contract between appellant and respondent. Complainant has no locus-standi to file complaint. Dist.Forum without considering the preliminary issues wrongly held that complainant is beneficiary as he purchased the shop. Dist.Forum did not appreciate the evidence on record while deciding the complaint. Hence, O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stand dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora D.N.Admane Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane