Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/01/2005 passed in consumer complaint No.62/2004, Adv.Dr.Vasant Moreshwar Mehendale V/s. Junior Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Anr., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (‘the Forum’ in short).
2. The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of officials of erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board for not attending the complaint of defective energy meter and replacement thereof and thereafter, discontinued the energy supply on the ground of non-payment of electricity bill which the complainant had asked to re-issue after assessing correct consumption charges. The Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and granted compensation of `500/- for mental torture and `500/- as costs. However, not satisfied with the same, the appeal is preferred by the original complainant.
3. In the instant case, deficiency in service is alleged against the officials, namely, Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. There are no personal allegations against the officials and their names are also not mentioned. Therefore, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gaziabad Development Authority V/s. Balbir Sing, (2004)5 SSC 65, there being no personal allegations against the officials either of the nature of misfeasance in public office, no deficiency in service on the part of those officials could be alleged. They are not the service providers. They are separate, independent and distinct jurisdic persons within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. Furthermore, now, Maharashtra State Electricity Board does not exist. The complainant failed to take any necessary steps to correct the description. The service provider in the case of energy supply is erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board and now, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and they were not the appellants. Under the circumstances, certain reliefs which are granted in favour of the appellant/complainant also could not have been granted. This is not a case for enhancement. Appeal is devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 10th January 2012.
