06-08-2015 - This appeal has been filed with a petition for condoning the delay of about 26 days.

2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. – appellants on the prayer for condoning the delay and also on merits.

3. The present complaint was filed by the Respondent – complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, for giving electricity connection to his the tenant (O.P.-2 – R-2 – Raj Kishore Maharaj) in holding no. 18/100, without his consent and proper verification/enquiry, and in collusion with the tenant. The complainant prayed for disconnection of such connection and for compensation etc.
4. It appears that the appellant appeared but did not file written statement to contest the case and ultimately left taking steps in the case. It further appears that the said tenant inspite of service of notice, did not appear to contest the case and therefore it was decided ex-parte against him.

5. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that electricity was rightly given in holding no. 18/99 on the application of the said tenant with no objection from one Ram Krishna Dodrajka. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

6. It appears that the complainant proved his case that he was the owner of holding no. 18/100 in which the said tenant was residing, but without his permission the appellants gave electricity connection to the said tenant in holding no. 18/100, belonging to the complainant, in collusion with the tenant, without verifying the correct holding number.

7. Now the appellants have filed some papers along with this appeal for the first time, to show that said tenant applied and was given electrical connection in holding no. 18/99, but the complainant proved that on the basis of such application, electrical connection was given to the said tenant in holding no. 18/100, which clearly proved deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

8. The learned District Forum has directed the appellants to pay Rs. 6,000/- being compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation and get the disputed electrical connection disconnected from holding no. 18/100 within 30 days of the order.

9. In our opinion, even if the delay of 26 days in filing this appeal is ignored, no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

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

Ranchi,

Dated:- 06.08.2015