15-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.      Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears for the parties.

2.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 20 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

3.       The respondent- complainant filed the present complaint case for a direction to O.Ps.- appellants-( Electricity Board for short) to provide fresh electrical connection in his residence. According to him, he applied for electrical connection in his house No. 51/2-III at Jharkhand Housing Board, Paldanga, Dhanbad, with requisite fee etc. but the electrical connection was not provided on the ground that there was dues of Rs. 1,31,206/- against the previous electrical connection in the said premises.

4.       The Electricity Board contested the case on various grounds. It was also said that the premises in question was allotted to one Ravi Thakur, who let out the same to the complainant, where the complainant has been residing prior to 28.08.1992, which was apparent from the memo no. 1502 dated 02.09.1997 issued by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board and he has been consuming electricity from the connection standing in the name of Ravi Thakur but he never paid monthly consumption bill.

5.       Further case of the Electricity Board was that, as per para 4 of the said sanction of allotment of house on rent dated 02.09.1997 issued by the Housing Board, the complainant was liable to pay the entire electricity dues.

6.       The learned District Forum interalia held as follows. From the letter dated 23.03.2010 under reference no. 182 A addressed by the Electricity Board to the complainant, it transpired that in the premises in question, there was already an electrical connection being Consumer No. COL 1235, against which the said dues was shown. A calculation chart of tariff was filed on behalf of the Electricity Board. From the letter dated 02.09.1997 issued by the Housing Board under memo no. 1502, it transpired that the premises in question was actually allotted to one Ravi Thakur who had let it out to the complainant, against which, the complainant deposited the rent for the period August, 1997. The Housing Board subsequently allotted the said premises to the complainant. Form-6, the  sanction of allotment of house on rent dated 02.09.1997 showed that the complainant had applied to the Housing Board for allotment of the premises on rent vide application no. 52 dated 24.07.1992 and it was allotted on 02.09.1997  to the complainant. Accordingly, it held that the complainant came in physical possession of the premises in question after issuance of the sanction of allotment letter dated 02.09.1997 and therefore, he was liable to pay electricity charge from September, 1997 till date, according to the meter reading. The Electricity Board was directed to issue fresh bill from September, 1997 till date without DPS charge to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order which the complainant was directed to pay within 30 days and after such payment the Electricity Board was directed to provide fresh connection to the complainant within a week.

7.       The documents filed by the parties before the learned District Forum has not been brought on record either by the appellants or by the respondent.

8.       From the copy of the formal complaint and the written statement filed on behalf of the Electricity Board annexed with the memo of appeal, it appears that the learned District Forum has not considered the respective cases of the parties properly. The meaning interpretation and scope of the documents filed by the parties before it, has not been discussed.

9.       In the circumstances, without going into the details, the impugned judgement is set aside and the matter is remanded for deciding the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Since, it is an old matter, the learned District Forum will try to dispose it off as early as possible and preferably within six months of communication of this order.

It is made clear that if the parties/ any of them, fail to appear, the learned District Forum may pass ex-parte order.

          With these observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed off.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi.  After the order was dictated with her consent, she informed that she would be absent for her treatment, and she is not sure when she will be available. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President, keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors and the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

             Ranchi,

     Dated:15-09-2015