A V Thomas And Co Ltd vs Meridian Apparel

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that property No. 12, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi belonged to AISS Jain Conference. In Flat No. 6 of the said building M/s. Lodha & Co. was a tenant. The electricity meter No. K -73848 was installed in the said flat for domestic purposes with a sanctioned load of 0.48 KW. During a surprise inspection, it was found that connected load exceeded the sanctioned load and it was 0.83 KW. It was also found that the connection which was sanctioned for domestic use had been diverted for commercial purposes. The supply was, therefore, disconnected on 7.11.1991. The complainant applied for restoration of the supply on 20.11.1991. A second inspection was carried out on 28.11.1991 when both the aforementioned contraventions were found to persist. In view of the second inspection, the application for restoration was declined. M/s. Lodha & Co. filed the present complaint before District Forum - II. The case was contested. On a consideration of the material before it, District Forum -II held that opposite parties were not justified in disconnecting the electric supply. It was further held that the opposite parties were not justified in refusing to restore the supply. The complainant was held to be a consumer. Disconnection having been carried out without serving a notice, was held to be illegal.

THE District Forum directed restoration of the connection, which was to be changed in the name of the complainant and also from domestic to commercial and to pay Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation. It was further directed for every week''s delay in restoration of the supply after 31.5.1994, the opposite party shall pay further compensation @ Rs. 500/ - per week. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal. None appeared for the appellant when the appeal was called on for hearing. We have, however, heard Mr. A.K. Vermani, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the record including a note of written arguments submitted earlier by Sh. K.N. Shrivastava, Additional Standing Counsel, NDMC.

THE first question arising for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable for want of privity of contract between the parties. There is no denying the fact that the connection stood is in the name of the land - lord of the premises. It can not also be denied that the electric connection was for the benefit of the tenant who was the actual occupant of the flat. Being a beneficiary, the complainant was clearly covered under the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

THE next question raised is that the connection was disconnected on 7.11.1991 and the present complaint having been filed after more than two years, was barred by limitation. Disconnection of electricity especially in contravention of the mandatory provisions with regard to notice, gives rise to a continuing cause of action and accordingly the complaint cannot be thrown -out on the ground of limitation. The next question is whether the directions given by the District Forum were beyond the purview of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act? The facts averred by the complainant constituted deficiency on the part of the opposite party direction to remove the deficiency could not possibly be considered beyond the scope of Section 14. Mr. A.K. Vermani, Advocate for the respondent informed us that the appellant had since converted the connection in the name of the respondent and had further changed the same from domestic to commercial and had also paid the compensation ordered by District Forum.

IN the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when there is a provision for appeal to the State Commission we do not approve of the order awarding additional compensation @ Rs. 500/ - per week after the expiry of time specified in this behalf. We set aside the same. We also think it necessary to put on record for observations made by the District Forum which inspection could not be carried out without prior notice or sanction obtained from the Magistrate Class -1 are against the law. In fact, no such notice or prior permission of the Magistrate is required in the case of connections which are already existing. Such permission is required only where the connections do not already exist. In another appeal from the order of the District Forum -II we had reversed a similar finding based upon construction of the provisions of Section 20 of the Electricity Act and that order was upheld in revision by the National Commission. (See M.C.D. v. Hamesh Madan, A -232/94 decided on 7.9.1995 and Revision Petition No. 802 of 1995 decided on 25.4.1996.)

FOR the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs in the aforementioned terms. A copy of the order be communicated to both the parties as well as to the District Forum -II. Appeal dismissed.