(Delivered on 23/08/2016)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member.

1.         The instant appeal is filed against the order of the Additional  District Forum, Nagpur passed in CC No. 6/2005 dated 14/09/2005 grating the complaint and directing the opposite party(O.P. for short) Nos. 1&2, the  Maharashtra State Electricity Board now Maharashtra Electricity  Distribution Company to refund  Rs. 300/- towards illegal  adjustment  and  reconnection charges & directed the O.Ps. not to disconnect the supply of the land lord complainant  for the arrears of his  tenant. Further directed the O.Ps.  to pay Rs. 2500/- to complainant  for harassment  and mental agony with  cost of litigation  of Rs. 1000/-. The order be complied  in the span of  30 days  from the  receipt of the order.  

2.         The  complainant herein complained that  there was a tenant by name  Bombay Intelligence Security  in his house in the year 1997-1998 which  did not pay the electricity bill and left the premises. However,  the O.P. Nos. 1&2 on 01/07/2004 gave  a bill of Rs. 4947/- as outstanding arrears of the  meter of the tenant  and directed him to pay the arrears. He protested  but paid Rs. 500/- which was adjusted to pay the part arrears of the tenant bill and his own bill.  The O.Ps.  continued to give him the  bill of arrears of the tenant inspite of the facts  that  he gave the new address of the tenant. However,  the O.Ps.  disconnected his supply and  threatened to  pay the arrears of the tenant.  He contended that   rather than  collecting arrears  from the tenant, the O.Ps. are threatening him to pay the arrears of the bill of his  tenant. 

            He therefore filed a complaint  before the Forum with a prayer to direct the O.P. Nos. 1&2 not to  recover the outstanding bill amount  of Rs. 4697/- of  his tenant  from him (complainant).  Further direct  O.P. to refund  the  Rs. 250/- adjusted   in the arrears  paid by him(complainant)   and also  amount   paid by him(complainant)  for  reconnection of disconnected electric supply.  Also direct the O.P. not to  disconnect his supply  and provide him Rs. 500/- as compensation  for  physical and mental  agony with  Rs. 4000/- as cost of litigation.  The complainant during the course of hearing  before the Forum filed amendment  to original complaint  as  he received the arrears bill of Rs. 12570/- on 04/03/2005 and he was required to deposit  Rs. 2000/- on 06/04/2005 with  reconnection charges of Rs. 25/- as  his  original electricity connection was disconnected for payment of  the arrears  by the opposite party(O.P.).

3.         On notice the O.P.Nos. 1&2 appeared  before the Forum and with written version countered the complaint stating that the  electrical connection was given in the premises of the complainant to his tenant with  due consent  of the complainant. As the  tenant  did not pay the electricity bill, the bill of Rs. 4947/- was added to the bill of  electrical connection of the complainant and he was issued bill of Rs. 5200/- on 01/07/2004.  The complainant paid  Rs. 500/- out of which  Rs. 250/- was adjusted  in his bill  and Rs. 250/- was adjusted as  part payment  of  the  arrears. As the  electrical connection of the tenant was in the premises of the complainant  and given  with his consent,  it is incumbent upon  the complainant  to pay the bill of that meter.  However, the complainant  filed  the malafied complaint. Hence,  there been no deficiency, the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.         The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that the O.P. Nos. 1&2 could not show the  consent  letter of the complainant to give consent  for the  electrical connection to the  tenant. Also the O.P. could not show the rule of its company by which  it was empowered to recover the arrears of  the connection given to the tenant from the owner and  to load those arrears on the bill of  the  owner the complainant. The  learned Forum also held that  when the tenant had left the premised without paying the bill the O.P. did not  take any  action of recovery till the year 2004 and  suddenly  loaded  arrears of the meter on the bill of the complainant.  The learned Forum therefore,  held it  to be deficiency in service and  passed the order as above. The learned Forum opined that  the O.P. are free to recover the arrears of the meter  of the tenant from the concerned  tenant.

5.         Aggrieved against the order, the O.P.  filed the present appeal and hence,  is called as appellant. Advocate  Smt. Deo appeared for the appellant.  The original  Complainant  remained absent inspite of notice  and hence,  proceeded exparte.

6.         The advocate for the appellant submitted the same ground as were submitted  before the learned Forum stating that the tenant connection was given in the premises of the respondent after the consent of the respondent only. Hence, the appellant  was right in collecting the arrears  from the owner of the premises, the respondent.  The  cases  cited by the respondent  before the learned Forum were not applicable as  the rules of  Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company are different than those of other States.  As the tenant did not pay the arrears  the owner of the property  i.e. the respondent  is bound to  pay it and therefore no deficiency was committed by the appellant to load  the arrears on the existing electric  connection  in the same premises and recover it as arrears  from the respondent.   However, the learned Forum did not appreciate  the said  contentions and passed  the wrong order which needs to be set aside.

7.         We considered  the material of record. We find that the appellant  has not filed  any specific rule of the service provider which provides that  the  arrears of  the electricity connection given to the  tenant can be loaded on the existing  connection of the owner and recover it from the owner.  Also  the appellant  could not show the consent  given by the owner  to provide connection to the tenant.  We also find that  the arrears  were of the year  1998-1999 where as  the bill was suddenly loaded  on the  connection of the respondent  in the year 2004 and  it was given to him after a span of  four years.  We do not find that  the appellant  gave  any notice  or  information  to the  respondent  about the  pending bill of the tenant and  its  intention  to load it on the existing  connection of the respondent.  The appellant did  not  also record  the explanation  of  the  respondent  before  loading the arrears  on his bill to collect it.

8.         We also find that  though  it is presumed that  the consent was given  by the respondent  still  the meter was given  in the name of  the tenant . Hence, the tenant was the primary consumer  and  it was incumbent upon  the  appellant  to recover the amount of bill from the tenant. Also  it could have  bound over the owner of the premises to be responsible for payment of  the bill in case  the tenant staying in the premises fails to submit the bill. In the absence of any evidence  which would prove a sincere effort and a justifiable method of recovery by the appellant  it cannot be  accepted that  the appellant  had a right  to suddenly  transfer  the accumulated  arrears  on the bill of the  respondent and recover them from the respondent under duress of  disconnection of electricity. It  justifies  the  conclusion claimed  by the learned Forum about  deficiency in service by the appellant.

9.         Thus  in view of the facts which have come to our notice as above  we  hold that the  impugned order passed by the learned Forum holds good and does not  deserve to be dislodged. The appellant can be still free to recover the arrears from the tenant   by taking recourse of law.

            Thus  we pass the order.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed.

ii.          The order of the Forum is confirmed.

iii.         Parties to bear their own costs.

iv.        Copy of order be sent to both the parties, free of cost.