Date 18/12/2012

O  R  A  L    O  R  D  E  R 

Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

1.       The present appeal is filed by original opponent No.1 and No. 2 who are the officers of           Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd challenging the judgment and order dated 16/05/2007 Passed by the Dist. Forum, Beed in complaint bearing CC.No. 114/2006 ,whereby the appellant electrical company is held liable and directed to provide new electrical connection to the complainant and to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint. The respondent herein is the original complainant.

2.       It is the case of the complainant before the Dist. Forum that he is the owner of house No. 1-5-1178 situated with the Municipal Council of Beed.  That, this house is an ancestral property of the complainant and  as  per the partition deed No. 1799/8/03 he has become owner of the part of the premises and accordingly his   name  is also mutated in municipal record. That he had applied  for new electric connection in his hissa of the said premises  vide application dt. 07/07/2006  which was came to be rejected vide letter  dated 15/07/2006 on the ground that the previous owner of the premises was in arrears of electric bill. That, he personally met with the appellant and requested for giving him new connection. However, it was  refused and therefore he filed consumer complaint before the Dist. Forum seeking direction to the appellant to provide him new electric connection as per his application and also to pay him Rs 4000/- towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint.

3.       Appellant appeared before the Dist.Forum and contested the claim of the complainant by way of its written version. The appellant had admitted that the complainant had applied for new connection in the  said house No. 1-5-1178 . However, it was contended that the father of the complainant Shri. Sarjerao Ashraji Markande was already given electric connection   since 30/12/1986 for the said premises with consumer No. 576010085674.  There were outstanding dues of electric bill of Rs 4,52,893/- by the  end of Nov. 2006. Therefore as per the regulation of appellant company unless the outstanding dues are cleared new connection was not admissible and hence complainant’s application for new electric connection in the said premises was came  tobe rejected vide letter dated 15/07/2006 and therefore there was no deficiency in service and  therefore requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The Dist. Forum after going  through the papers and hearing the parties  allowed the complaint by way of it’s impugned judgment and order and directed the appellant to provide electric connection to the respondent/complainant within a period of 30 days and also to pay Rs 5000/- towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed  by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.. This appeal came tobe finally heard on 21/11/2012. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale was present for the appellant. None was present for the respondent although on earlier date Adv. Shri.R.T.Deshmukh was present for the respondent. The advocate for the appellant  Shri.S.N.Tandale submitted written notes of argument. We have also heard him and the appeal was reserved for judgment and order.

6.       The learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale submitted that the respondent/original complainant is not a consumer of the appellant as he has not paid any consideration and therefore the question of deficiency in service does not arise. It was also contended that as per the condition No. 10. 5 of the   Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission  in ( Electricity Supply code and other conditions of supply )  Regulation 2005, any charge against the erstwhile owner/occupier of any premises shall be transferred to the new owner/occupier of the premises and the same shall be recoverable from the new owner/occupier. He submitted  that there was outstanding dues as on July 2011 at Rs 11,70,361.74/- on the said premises and hence unless dues are clear new connection can not be granted. He further contended that the Dist.Forum has wrongly held that the premises where new connection is sought by the complainant is different from the one where there are outstanding dues . In fact the premises of the respondent are the same which were earlier owned by his father Shri.Sarjerao Ahraji Markande, and part of which  came to his share by way of partition taken place in the year 2003 and hence the appellant electric company has rightly rejected the application of the respondent/complainant regarding new connection and that therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. He therefore contended that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate these aspects properly and erroneously passed impugned judgment and order which requires to be set aside.

          The learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale for the appellant relied on following citations.

i)        BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd – V/s- Shri Goel S.Pal  reported in         2008 (4) CPR 267 (NC)

ii)       Mdhu S.Nair – V/s- Kerala State Electricity Board 2008 (4) CPR     302 (NC).

7.       We have perused the papers as well as considered  the oral   and  written arguments as submitted by the learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale for the appellant. From the perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent it is observed that the premises bearing house No. 1-5-1178 where in the  respondent had applied for new connection    is the ancestral property of the respondent which was divided by partition in the year 2003 and the part of the said premises has come to the share of the respondent. The main ground on the basis of which  the appellants have rejected the new electric connection to the respondent  that is the earlier owner of the said premises i.e. his father Shri. Shri.Sarjerao Ahraji Markande had taken electric connection as on 30/12/1986  and his consumer No. is  576010085674. That on this connection there is outstanding amount of Rs 4,52,893/- towards electric bill by the end of Nov. 2006 and therefore as per rules and regulation unless the earlier outstanding dues are paid the new connection can not be given in the same  premises. The appellants have also produced on record the extract of regulation i.e. Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission (  Electricity Supply code and other conditions of supply )  Regulation 2005. That as per the  Condition No. 10.5 of the said regulation unless the outstanding dues are paid pertaining to the earlier connection the new connection is not permissible in the said premises. We thus find that the appellant electric company has rightly rejected the application filed by the respondent/complainant for new connection.

6.       The Dist.Forum however has wrongly considered the premises of the complainant as different from the existing premises on which there are outstanding dues. It is quite interesting to  note that the Dist.Forum has held that the part of the premises wherein the earlier meter was installed had gone in the hissa of his another brother and therefore  the present respondent is not liable to pay the earlier dues. As we have mentioned above  the entire property before partition was the same where the father of the respondent had taken connection and for which there are dues of Rs 4,52,893/- and therefore it would be funny to conclude that the premise consisting of the earlier meter has gone in the share of his brother and therefore the respondent is not liable to pay the dues. The ratio given in the citation as relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is quite applicable  in the present case. It is clearly mentioned in the said citation that the new owner/occupied of  premises has to pay the dues against the previous owner/tenant. In view of this aspects and observation we find that the Dist.Forum has erred in appreciating the defense of the appellant and has wrongly concluded that the appellant have committed deficiency in service. We are  therefore inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order  passed by the Dist. Forum. Hence, following order.

                   O   R    D    E    R

1.       Appeal is   allowed.

2.       The impugned judgment and order passed by theDist. Forum is     hereby quashed and set aside.

3.       The complaint stands dismissed.

4.       No order as to costs.

5.       Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.