Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/09/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.120/2010, (M.Rajkumar N. Udhani v/s. M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. & ors.), by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. District Forum while allowing the consumer complaint directed the appellant/MSEDCo. to pay compensation of `20,000/- together with costs of litigation of `5000/-. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, present appeal has been filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (in short ‘MSEDCo.’) on the ground that the disconnection of the electric supply in the premises was carried out at the request of respondent no.2 herself and respondent no.1/complainant had no locus standi to file consumer complaint. However, the District Forum has erroneously held that the present respondent is a ‘consumer’ and passed the impugned order.
2. Admittedly, the premises were owned by respondent no.2 (Mrs.Dipali Siddharth Shah) and respondent no.1(Mr.Rajkumar Namomal Udhani), the original complainant/consumer was a tenant, running commercial establishment in shop no.10 of the premises owned by respondent no.2. Written request of respondent no.2 prompted appellant/MSEDCo. to disconnect electric supply from the shop premises. There was Leave and License Agreement between respondent nos.1 & 2 in respect of said shop and it was incorporated as a condition in the said Leave and License Agreement that the electricity charges, telephone charges, water charges, etc. shall be borne and paid by the licensee i.e. by respondent no.1. It was pleaded by the Ld.Advocate for the appellant that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no.1, as the premises were owned by respondent no.2 and the action taken by the officers of the appellant on written request to disconnect the electricity meter cannot be faulted with.
3. Respondent no.1 was heard in person who submitted that without giving any intimation to him as an occupier of the shop premises, appellant disconnected the electric supply. Respondent no.2 -i.e. shop owner did not intimate him about the disconnection of electric supply from the shop premises and he was taken unaware of the development. Respondent no.1 has certainly remedy against the respondent no.2 elsewhere and not in the Consumer Fora as it is a civil dispute between respondent nos.1&2 as rightly pleaded by the Ld.Advocate of the appellant that there was no privity of contract between respondent no.1 and the appellant/MSEDCo. Moreover, the electricity meter was reconnected by the order of the District Forum w.e.f.07/06/2010. The complaint of respondent no.1 is to compensate him for the intervening period of disconnection of electric supply which cannot be entertained in the Consumer Fora. District Forum has erred in holding respondent no.2 as a consumer in absence of privity of contract as observed, supra. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, consumer complaint will not survive. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint is quashed and set aside.
In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 27th September, 2012.
