Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/09/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.211/2002, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur, (‘Forum below’ in short). (2) The facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under: The Appellant/original Complainant had filed consumer complaint contending that he is taking electric supply from the Respondent Company/Original Opposite Party and his Consumer Number is 330240419734. He alleged that the Respondent/Opposite Party had issued the electricity bills from the year 1998-2002 and the bills were exorbitant. The Respondent/Opposite Party had forced Appellant/original Complainant to pay the exorbitant bills and hence, he had filed the consumer complaint praying that the bills from 1998-2002 may please be quashed and the amount he deposited may pleased be directed to be returned along with interest. The Opposite Party should be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.500/-. Forum below after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the original Complainant has filed this appeal. (3) Admittedly, the complaint is filed for deceased K.A. Sheikh and B.N. Shaikh. The appellant/original Complainant has not disclosed when the persons have died. He has not filed the heirship certificate of the deceased and how he is related with the deceased. The Appellant/original Complainant had not filed any evidence to show that how the bills from 1998-2002 are exorbitant. The Appellant/original Complainant had not disclosed which bills he has challenged. (4) The Appellant/original Complainant is challenging the electricity bills from 1998-2002 that too in the year 2002. He has not explained how the complaint filed is within time limit prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. (5) From the appeal compilation it is seen that still the meters are in the name of the deceased persons. The Appellant has not tried to transfer the bills/meters in his name. There is no privity of contract between the Appellant/original Complainant and Respondent/Opposite Party. Ld.District Forum relying on the judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata passed in W.B.S.E.B. v/S.. Prabir Ramjan Dutta III(2005) CPJ 189 had dismissed the complaint. (6) The Appellant has filed following copies of the orders in support of his case: (i) Y.N. Gupta V/s. D.E.S.U. , reported in Vol I(1993) CPJ 27(NC) (ii) Harish Kumar V/s. Chief Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board & Ors., reported in Vol I(1993) CPJ 299. (iii) Delhi Electric Supply undertaking V/s. Lt.Col. S.K. Bakshi, reported in Vol II(1995) CPJ 131. (iv) Kritibas Ghosh V/s. Biswanath Saha & Ors., reported in Vol I(1996) CPJ 135. (v) ‘Spring Meadows Hospital V/s. Harjol Ahluwalia , reported in Air 1998 Supreme Court 1801. (7) The facts in the aforesaid rulings are not relevant in the present case. The Appellant/original Complainant has miserably failed to lead any evidence under section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to prove his case. (8) We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Forum below. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. | 
