M.C.No.419 of 2023

F.A. No. 83 of 2023

          Appellant is present in person. She submits that there is 49 days delay in filing the appeal due to herillness and prays to condone the delay.

2.      Mr. P.K.Tripathy,learned counsel and associates files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent which is accepted and kept on record. His name be reflected in the cause list henceforth.  Counsel for the respondent formally objected the petition.

3.      In view of the aforesaid submission and fact that there is  delay of only 49 days, there is sufficient ground to condone the delay. Therefore,we condone the delay.

4.      Heard  the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent in the appeal. On going through the impugned order, we do not want to call for DFR.

5.      The appellant submits that she resides in mother-in-law’s house in one premises to get different electric connection. She submits that she has got power supply under Soubhagya Scheme where the meter has got  separate vide consumer No.9036 1204 0661. She submits that the respondent in exercising their power have issued bill in her name showing the arrear of mother in –law. She challenged  the same before the Learned District Commission who has not actually dealt with her issue but only she got the reconnection of the power supply. Therefore,she has come on appeal  to get  proper relief.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per clause-17 of OERC, 2019  the appellant was entitled to pay the arrear of mother in-law. However, they have already gaiven reconnection of electric line to the appellant as per the order of the learned District Commission.

7.      We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.  It appears that  the learned District Forum without considering the law with proper prospective has passed the impugned order.  The order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned District Commission is as follows:-

                   “xxx                      xxx                 xxx

Heard. Perused the materials available on record. The complainant has presented this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.

It is contended that the complainant has availed house under Indira Abhas Yojana and a beneficiary under Saubhagya Scheme on dt.23.10.2021. The  officer of the opposite parties  handed over a bill of Rs.1,75,611/- and without any demand notice disconnected power supply which the complainant had obtained under Saubhagya Scheme which caused suffering and mental agony to the complainant.

The opposite party appeared and filed their written version denying the petition allegation on all its material particulars.

Both the parties have failed to adduce evidence on affidavit to substantiate their respective pleadings  as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act,2019.

It reveals from the materials on record that, during  pendency of this Consumer complaint the opposite party has already restored the electric connection to the premises of the complainant on 19.03.2022 vide consusmer No.903612040661 which has been dely intimated to this Commission by the complainant herself on 20.06.2022 in writing is placed on record. As such we are of our opinion that there is no grievance remain unsettled.

However, the opposite parties are directed to issue bill for consumption of electricity bill regularly every month to the complainant,so that the complainant will feel easy to pay the bill for consumption of electricity charges.There is no order as to costs. The case is disposed of accordingly.”

8.      The aforesaid order shows that the case is not decided properly and issue between the parties  has not been discussed.When there are two electricity power connection under different consumers,  Clause-17 of OERC,2019 is not applicable. It is only applicable when there was fresh connection asked for  by the parties. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent  appears to have no merit. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The O.P is directed not to raise electric bill of mother in-law who is alive to be leviable from the appellant(complainant). She is only liable to pay her consumption bill under her separate consumer number.

9.      With the above observation,  the appeal is disposed of accordingly.