Heard learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case  of the  complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant  is a consumer under the OP. On 05.07.2006 the complainant received notice from the OP for disconnection if he does not pay the arrears of  Mrs. Sarojini Mishra the mother of complainant. The complainant has stated to have paid Rs.2800/- and signed the statement record   of  OP to pay. However, notice for disconnection was issued. Challenging same, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP   filed the written version stating that actually the owner of the house  is mother of the complainant. Since, his mother has objected to supply the electric connection, they are bound  to disconnect power supply.   So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “Accordingly the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,300/- with interest from 14.02.05 till payment at the rate  of which the electricity Board charges surcharge on unpaid amount of electricity charges alongwith cost of Rs.500/-. The OP is also restrained to demand the balance amount of Rs.2,800/- from the complainant towards arrear of his mother.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   complainant is not a consumer but  complainant’s mother is consumer. According to him the complainant has applied   for  electric line and the mother objected to it, arrear of  the company suffered a lot. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                It is clearly found from the impugned order and the other material on record that the mother Mrs. Sarojini Mishra  is the owner of the house and she has asked not to give power supply.  At the same time the complainant has already deposited the money as required by the OP-Deptt.  When  the electric line has been inadvertently given on acceptance of money  of Rs.2800/-, same should be refundable by the OP No.1 to the complainant. But it appears from the DFR that the power supply already was there. When the mother is objecting  the power supply  being  the owner of the house, the  OP should not have  accepted the money and consented to give power supply. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the order of the learned District Forum is confirmed. Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost.                   

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.