Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This was unattended matter from 2004.  On 28^th July, 2011 for the first time it was placed on board of this bench for disposal.  Since both the parties were absent, we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties and adjourned the matter for today.  On 16/08/2011 notice was sent to both the parties and both the parties are absent today.  We, therefore, perused the impugned order.  We are finding that the Complainant owned two flats, flat nos.5 and 6 and Flat No.6 was sold by registered Sale Deed to Opponent No.1 – Mr.Joseph Desmond Wood by the Complainant for valuable consideration.  Complainant had taken electricity Meter in Flat No.5.  After  selling of the flat by Complainant to Opponent No.1, one day Opponent No.2, the Appellant herein disconnected electric supply of the Complainant’s flat without his knowledge and transferred the meter on the name of the purchaser who was owner of Flat No.6 i.e. Opponent No.1.  Complainant therefore alleged deficiency in service on finding that his meter was illegally transferred by M.S.E.B. in the name of Opponent No.1.  He protested by sending notice but notice was not heeded by the M.S.E.B. and therefore, he filed consumer complaint against Joseph Wood, Owner of Flat No.6 and also against M.S.E.B. 

(2)                The complaint was contested and District Forum found that the M.S.E.B. was guilty of deficiency in service in as much as meter was standing in the name of Complainant and from that meter electricity was supplied to both flats by M.S.E.B.    After sale of the Flat by Complainant to the Opponent No.1, the M.S.E.B. transferred the said meter in the name of Opponent No.1.  One day the M.S.E.B. disconnected the electricity supply of the flat belonging to the Complainant and therefore, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent No.2, Appellant herein and therefore, it was pleased to allow the complaint partly and directed M.S.E.B., Opponent No.2 to supply new electric connection for disputed meter for flat no.6.  Both Opponents were directed to pay compensation of `25,000/- to the Complainant for mental harassment. They were also directed to pay costs of `5,000/- as such M.S.E.B. has filed this appeal.

(3)                In filing this appeal we are finding that there is delay of 217 days.  However for seeking condonation of delay Misc. Application No.764/2004 has been filed.  In condonation of delay application only ground taken is that one Mr.V.Nimbalkar, Executive Engineer was sick and he expired on 24.09.2003.  Therefore, matter was not traceable to the newly appointed Executive Engineer and as such delay is caused.  This is hardly any sufficient ground to condone the enormous delay of 217 days in filing this appeal. The impugned order came to be passed on 3^rd May, 2003 and appeal has been filed on 19^th March, 2004, so for condoning this much delay there is no just and sufficient cause mentioned by the Appellant and therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)            Misc.Application No.764/2004 filed for seeking condonation of delay stands rejected.

  (ii)            Consequently Appeal No.561/2004 does not service for consideration.

(iii)            Inform the parties according.

Pronounced on 19^th September, 2011.