Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr.S.Parades-Advocate for non applicant/respondent no.1. Mr.N.G.Helekar-Advocate for non applicant/respondent no.3
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 27/07/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.12/2011, Mr.Shankar Bhiva Pawar v/s. Executive Engineer, Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and others; by District Forum, Ratnagiri. Alleged deficiency in service is in respect of discontinuing water supply to a water pump installed on a well in a land belonging to Zilha Parishad, Ratnagiri situated in Survey no.2 at village Nate Bharadi. Forum while allowing the complaint as against the appellants/original opponent nos.1 & 2 directed them to restore the energy supply and also directed complainant-Mr.Shankar Bhiva Pawar to bear the expenses of installation of the poles to ensure such supply. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, original opponent nos.1&2 viz. Executive Engineer and Deputy Engineer (Assistant Engineer) of the Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. have preferred this appeal.
There is delay of 106 days in filing the appeal and hence delay condonation application bearing no.MA/12/22 is filed. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the applicant/appellant did not press the application and appeal as against respondent/original opponent no.3 -the President, Zilha Parishad, Taluka and District Ratnagiri, respondent /original opponent no.4-Engineer, Rural Water Works office, Ratnagiri, Taluka & District Ratnagiri, respondent/original opponent no.5-Panchayat Samiti, Rajapur through Block Development officer, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, respondent/original opponent no.6-Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Nate, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, respondent /original opponent no.7-Shri Sanjay Vitthal Bandkar, r/o. Nate, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri , respondent /original opponent no.8-Smt.Supriya Sunil Desai, R/o. Nate, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, respondent /original opponent no.9-Shri Vasant Vishnu Shane, r/o. Nate, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri and respondent /original opponent no.10-Smt.Samradni Pravin Holam R/o. Nate, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri (respondent nos.2 to 9). Under the circumstances, since application for condonation of delay as well as appeal is not pressed as against respondent nos.2 to 9, application for condonation of delay as well as appeal appeal against them stands dismissed.
Respondent/original complainant through his advocate and respondent no.3 through its advocate as well as Ld.counsel for the applicant/appellant through their advocate are heard.
In the instant case, it will be further pointed out, infra, a substantial question arises as to alleged act contrary to the law of the respondent/ complainant to extend disconnection to a water pump, which was not authorized by the Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. It ultimately emerges as an undisputed fact that energy connection was sanctioned to respondent/complainant for his domestic use for a bore well at his house. What he did to extend the said connection illegally, across the road to the well situated in survey no.2 i.e. the land belonging to Zilha Parishad and the well used for supply of water to the community and installed electric meter pump there. Such is an unauthorized use of electricity pump. On complaint received, the Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. disconnected the said energy connection. In respect of disconnection of the energy supply to the water pump since it was not the connection sanctioned, no deficiency in service on the part of Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. could be alleged or inferred.
Furthermore, consumer complaint is not filed against Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. which is a company established under the Statute and, as such, an independent and distinct status as a ‘legal person’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Its employees viz.Executive Engineer of the Divisional office at Ratnagiri or its Deputy Engineer/Assistant Engineer at Rajapur are separate and distinct entities than the company itself. Since the company was not a party to the proceeding, any direction given to the company to restore the energy connection was also improper and the impugned order suffers from that vice. Therefore, rightly, Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. being aggrieved person preferred this appeal.
In view of the above referred circumstances, to do a substantial justice, we find delay is satisfactorily explained and condone the delay in filing the appeal by allowing misc. application no.MA/12/22.
Admit and heard forthwith with consent of both the parties against whom the appeal is pressed.
For the above referred reason, it is the complainant who is at fault in extending the connection to a water pump installed at a well in a land belonging to Zilha Parishad without any authority or permission from the Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. which sanctioned the electric connection for domestic purpose at his house. Therefore, as earlier pointed out, when the electric connection to a water pump is illegally taken by the complainant was discontinued, no deficiency in service on the part of Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. could be inferred. Much less, no such deficiency in service could be inferred as against original opponent no.1- viz.Executive Engineer of said company at their Divisional office at Ratnagiri or original opponent no.2- Deputy Engineer of the company at Rajapur.
As earlier pointed out, to give any direction against the company when it was not a party was also improper, nay, the forum committed serious error of law in passing the order against the Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Misc.application no.MA/12/22 is allowed.
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 27/07/2011 is set aside and, in the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Order accordingly.
Pronounced on 12th December, 2012.
