Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

         Though there are two advocates on record, namely, Mr.S.P.Sharma and Mr.N.C,Saini, both are absent today. 

We perused the order dated 21/06/2010 State Commission.  We have directed the appellant to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/-.  The respondent now reports that amount of Rs.1,000/- has not been paid by the appellant till date.  No one is present today.  Also no one reports the difficulty of the advocates.  The officers of the appellant is also absent.  Under these circumstances, there is no alternative left than to dismiss the appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

However, we do not desire to dispose it of only on ground of non-compliance and therefore, we have also decided to look into the appeal for purpose of merit.  The respondent is regularly making payment.  However, in his bill an amount of Rs.80,603.34 plus interest amount of Rs.9,733.14 was included.  On being enquired as to how this amount has been included, the information supplied to the complainant/respondent was that this is the amount of due from one Mr.Sadanand Kashinath Patil.  District Consumer Redressal Forum has found that so far as the bills of Mr.Sadanand Patil are concerned, the amount of those bills cannot be recovered from the complainant because the complainant is not using the electricity and there is no privity of contract between Mr.Sadanand Patil and complainant and/or between the complainant and MSEDC.  Taking this view of the matter, the complaint has been allowed and directions have been issued as per impugned order.  On merit we find that there is no substance in the appeal.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:

1.                 Appeal is hereby rejected in limine.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Dictated on dais.

4.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

L.O. at 5.45 p.m.

          Adv.Mr.S.P.Sharma submitted an application for setting aside the order passed in morning session.  We have decided the matter in absence of advocate on merit.  Therefore, provision like Order 9 Rule 13 is not applicable in consumer Fora.  Hence the application stands rejected.