Aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the State Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) whereby the State Commission accepting the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party, has set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, complainant has filed the present revision petition.

FACTS:

-2-

Controversy involved in this case is with respect to electricity connection No.H-3/21-0004 which existed in the name of Ram Chander, father of the petitioner.  Ram Chander died on 13.12.1996.  After his death complainant/petitioner had been using the said connection and had been making the payment of all electricity bills from time to time.  There was nothing outstanding against him.  Vigilance team of the respondent checked the meter of the petitioner on 12.12.2007 and found that right hand seal wire had been broken.  A report was prepared on which signatures of the petitioner were taken.  Respondent taking it to be case of ‘theft of electricity’ imposed a penalty of Rs.3,21,595/-.  Respondent served two notices i.e. one for Rs.3,21,595/- for the loss of the Nigam which is unnumbered and undated and another notice for Rs.90,000/- dated 14.12.2007 in lieu of compounding fee.  As the amount was not paid, the officials of the respondent disconnected the electric connection.   Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the impugned penalty.  Respondent was directed to refund the amount received from the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.

-3-

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same on the ground that since the connection was in the name of the father of the petitioner and not in his name, petitioner was not a consumer falling within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in holding that the petitioner is not a consumer; that the respondents had been using the connection after the death of his father from 13.12.1996 and the respondents were treating the petitioner to be a ‘Consumer’ and issuing the bills to him which he had been paying regularly; that the respondents had issued notice of disconnection as well as imposition of the penalty on the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was maintainable.

          We agree with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner.  It is not disputed before us that the electric connection had been obtained by Ram Chander, father of the petitioner/complainant who died on 13.12.1996.  It is also not disputed that after the death of his father, bills were issued which the petitioner had been paying regularly.  It is also not disputed before us that the notice of

-4-

disconnection as well as notice imposing the penalty and the compounding fee was served on the petitioner.  Since the notice of disconnection and imposition of penalty had been served on the petitioner, the complaint filed by him was maintainable.  Petitioner had been served with the notice and hence he had a right to challenge the notice of disconnection as well as imposition of penalty.  The State Commission, in our considered view, has erred in non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a consumer as the electric connection did not stand in his name.  Once the petitioner has been served with a notice of disconnection as well as imposition of penalty, the petitioner certainly had a right to challenge the same by filing the complaint.

          For the reasons stated above, revision petition is allowed.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law treating the petitioner to be a ‘Consumer’.

          All contentions are left OPEN.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 02.05.2012.

-5-

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance.