JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The petitioner had obtained an electricity connection in a room in a house in Rajaram Vishnu Raul Nagar, Chandanwadi, Thane. The said house is stated to be owned by respondent No.2 Smt. Dwarkabai S. Pardeshi who is the maternal aunt of the petitioner. The said connection was transferred by respondent No.1 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company in the name of respondent No.2 - Smt. Dwarkabai S. Pardeshi and electricity bills were issued in her name. Later, the bills were issued in the name of the complainant. The petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking stay against the change of the name in respect of the said connection and stay against disturbance of the electricity supplied to him through the said connection.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents. In its reply filed before the District Forum, respondent No.1 had taken the stand that they had legally released the power after verifying the necessary documents and did not wish to dispute the claim of the complainant.

3.      The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint by directing that no third party interest in respect of the said connection should be created without permission of the complainant. Cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- was also awarded to the complainant.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, respondent No.2 Smt. Dwarkabai S. Pardeshi approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.12.2018, the State Commission allowed the said appeal holding that respondent No.2 was the owner of the property in which the connection had been installed and the petitioner had taken undue advantage of her advanced age and illiteracy to get the connection transferred in his name. it was also held by the State Commission that respondent No.1 ought to have taken appropriate care before transferring of the connection in the name of the petitioner/complainant. The order passed by the District Forum was, therefore, set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed with cost. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the connection was obtained by the complainant/petitioner directly in his own name and the respondent No.1 had issued only one bill in the name of respondent No.2 and when he protested,  the bill was again issued in the name of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the electricity through the connection obtained by him and respondent No.1 has no right to transfer the said connection in favour of respondent No.2.

6.      During the course of hearing I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that as to what the status of the petitioner / complainant is, in the house in which the connection was obtained by him. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner / complainant is the owner of the said house. Admittedly, a civil suit was filed by the complainant against respondent No.2  for declaration that he is the owner of the aforesaid property and for an injunction.  Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court, Thane on 29.10.2011. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner / complainant against the order of the Civil Judge was also dismissed. As a result, the decision of the learned Civil Judge became final inter se between the petitioner / complainant and respondent No.2 who is his maternal aunt. The finding of the Civil Court being binding upon the Consumer Forum, the State Commission, in my opinion, was correct in holding that the complainant had no right to obtain an electricity connection in his name in the house owned by respondent No.2. The petitioner could have obtained an electricity connection either as a tenant or as a licensee of respondent No.2, she being the owner of the house. He does not even claim to be either the tenant or the licensee of respondent No.2. Mere occupation of the house by him does not entitle him to obtain an electricity connection unless he is able to show that his occupation is legal and in accordance with law. Since it has been held by the Civil Court that he is not the owner of the house and he does not even claim to be either the tenant or licensee of respondent No.2 who owns the said house, he has no legal right to continue to get electricity through the connection which he has obtained in his name since respondent No.2 is not agreeable to the petitioner / complainant continuing to enjoy electricity in her house through the said connection as is evident from her having challenged the order passed by the District Forum.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional  jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.