(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/06/2005 in Consumer Complaint No.67/2004, Shri Prakash Madhavrao Kulkarni Vs. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Rajya Vidhyut Mandal, Nashik & ors., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (‘Forum’ in short). The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the original complaint preferred this appeal.
(2) The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of Maharashtra Rajya Vidhyut Mandal (Now taken over by Maharashtra State Vidhyut Distribution Co.Ltd.) by not considering the request of Nitin Doulat Lindait, the purchaser of the house to transfer the energy connection of the said house in his name from earlier vendor, Prakash Madhavrao Kulkarni whose name is mentioned here as an appellant/complainant. The forum held that the complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opponents and dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the original complainant preferred this appeal.
(3) Respondent/original opponents by Adv.Jinsiwale are present today, however the appellant/complainant preferred to remain absent, in spite of notice published on notice board and on internet and in spite of the fact of sending further intimation by way of abundant precaution by post on 01/11/2011. This is an old appeal and, therefore, we prefer to go through the material placed before us and consider the appeal for admission. Heard.
(4) In the instant case, as earlier observed, Maharashtra State Electricity Board is no more in existence and it appears that the said board is now taken over by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. The forum held that as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, the consumer complaint cannot be entertained.
(5) The dispute pertains to not transferring the energy connection in the name of the purchaser of the house i.e. Nitin Doulat Lindait when the house was transferred by the previous vendor, Prakash Madhavrao Kulkarni, who seems to be consumer of the opponent. Nitin Lindait is purchaser and only by virtue of the fact that he had purchased the house, does not give him right to file complaint on behalf of the vendor, Prakash Madhavrao Kulkarni. For this reason also, the consumer complaint vis-à-vis appeal is bad and cannot be entertained.
(6) From the pleadings on record, it appears that there were arrears of energy consumption charges and they were to be cleared before entertaining request of the purchaser of the house to transfer energy connection in his name. Because of the arrears, energy connection cannot be transferred in the name of Nitin Lindait. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of opponent Electric Supply Company could be alleged. For the reasons stated above, ultimate dismissal of the complaint cannot be faulted with and thus finding appeal devoid of merit, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 30th January, 2012.
