This MISC Case has arisen out of a petition filed by One Sri Dilip Sen of village Kalain, District- Cachar (Assam) under section 38 (8) of Chapter IV of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for passing interim order/relief.

The case of the Complainant/Petitioner in brief, is that the Dishnet Wireless limited put up a tower in the land of the petitioner. The tower company has/had separate meter and since 2008 to April 2020 the APDCL, Kalain generated bill against that meter. A licence deed was executed between the petitioner and the tower company and it was mentioned in the deed that the charges of electricity used by the company shall be paid by the Dishnet Wireless limited. It has been alleged that subsequently the APDCL, Kalain disconnected the electricity line of the Complainant for non-payment of electricity bill by the Dishnet Wireless limited. According to the petitioner the said disconnection is quite illegal and as a result of said disconnection the petitioner has been put under great inconvenience and professional loss. Hence, this petition for restoration of connection.

On the other hand, the version of the O.P. APDCL is that the petitioner consumed electricity in respect of his land and the APDCL allowed connection on submission of Indemnity Bond and NOC from the owner. It is stated that this so called Consumer/Complainant did not pay the bill and an amount of Rs.2,87,856 has remained outstanding including arrear which the Complainant/Petitioner  is legally bound to pay. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of petition.

Heard Ld. counsel of both sides. Though the O.P. has claimed that the petitioner submitted Indemnity Bond at the time of giving electricity connection to the tower company i.e Dishnet Wireless Limited but the said bond or copy of the same has not been submitted in the case. Moreover, the O.P. side has failed to show sufficient reasons as to why the petitioner is liable to pay the pending

                                                                                                            Contd. P/2

P/2

electric charge incurred by the Tower company. The matter as to whether the petitioner is legally bound to pay the pending electric charge of the tower company or not that will be decided in the main case. Hence, considering all circumstances it is ordered that the O.P. APDCL shall restore the electric connection of the petitioner immediately and shall submit fresh bill excluding pending electric charge incurred for the tower put up on the land of the petitioner and the petitioner shall make payment of said bill as per norms of the O.P. company.

The misc case accordingly stands allowed on contest. No cost.