District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondent/complainants did not have the locus standii to file the complaint, as the meter was in the name of one Som Prakash.  Respondents, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and remanded the complaints to the District Forum to decide the same afresh on merits treating the respondents to be consumers.  State Commission has recorded the following finding :

“As per allegation of the appellant (complainant) the previous owner of the house was Sh. Som Parkash and the electricity connection was also in the name of Sh. Som Parkash but she had purchased the said premises bearing No. 3456/1, Sector 23, Chandigarh from the previous owner Sh. Som Parkash on 28.4.2002 and since then she was residing with her family in the said premises and had regularly paying the electricity bill issued by the OPs.  Since, the appellant is residing in the premises in question and consuming electricity and had been regularly paying the electricity bills issued prior to the impugned order, so, she shall be presumed to be the beneficiary and being beneficiary she is the consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.  Thus, the complaint has been illegally dismissed by holding that the same is not maintainable.  Therefore, we set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T, Chandigarh dated 1.6.2006 and remand back to the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh for deciding it on merits, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence by way of affidavits.  The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh on 31.10.2006.” 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Respondents had purchased the premises from its previous owner, Som Prakash, in the year 28.4.2002.  Since the bills issued by the petitioner to the respondents were subsequent to the purchase of the house by the respondents and it is the respondents who had consumed the electricity, respondents were consumers and the complaint filed by them would be maintainable.

We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  No merits.  Dismissed.

Petitioner, through its counsel, is directed to appear before the District Forum on 9.12.2010.

Since it is an old case, we would request the District Forum to dispose of the complaint within 6 months from the date of service on the respondents.