PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order-dated 08.08.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1149 of 2010, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’). The -2- appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent-UHBVNL herein against the order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the District Forum had allowed the complaint in the following manner: “ We, therefore, accept the complaint of the complainant and quash the amount of disputed bills in question i.e. bill of November, 2009 and January, 2010 and direct the respondent not to recover the amount of Rs. 2,73,113/- from the complainant and only charge actual consumption charges for the said disputed bills as well as further bills treating the connection of complainant as only issued for agricultural purpose. The respondent is further directed to adjust the amount, if any, already found deposited by the complainant towards the disputed bills in the future bills of the complainant.” 2. In appeal, a plea was raised on behalf of the respondent-UHBVNL that the complainant being not the electric connection holder was not entitled to file the complaint, which plea was accepted by the State Commission, though it was brought to the notice of the State Commission that the complainant is not a stranger but was the son of Raghbir Singh in whose name the electric connection was granted by the respondent and the said Raghbir Singh having died before filing of the complaint. Going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, a petitioner being the beneficiary of the electric connection and being the son, after the death of his father was within its right to maintain -3- a complaint and seek redressal of his grievance in relation to the electric connection standing in the name of his father. 3. For the above states reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remit the appeal to the board of the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits. 4. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.10.2012. | 
