Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs SATISH GOPALRAO GHATATE

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 19.4.94 passed in complaint No. 129/93. A dispute was raised before the District Forum by the complainant, Shri Satish Ghatate, alleging deficiencies in the service of M.S.E.B. The complainant has been granted by the District Forum with a direction to supply electricity to the individual shop owners in the complex in question.

WE have heard Mr. Panchal, Advocate for appellant and Mr. Deo, Advocate for respondent. The impugned order required to be set aside for the following reasons. In order to create a consumer dispute, the person who approaches the consumer must show that he has hired the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. In the instant case, no consideration has been paid by the complainant to the M.S.E.B. It is argued by Mr. Deo that at the instance of M.S.E.B., his clients spent Rs. 3 lacs for construction of some structure for keeping the transformer etc. This is not a consideration paid to the M.S.E.B. Therefore, the complaint should not have been admitted by the District Forum.

From the facts, it appears that the complainant is a builder and owner of commercial complex. The tenaments or the shops are to be allotted or sold to the individual persons who can obtain their own electric meters after the payment of necessary charges to M.S.E.B. It is clarified by Mr. Panchal that no demand note was submitted to the complainant and no charges were paid to the M.S.E.B. by the complainant. Thus, there is no nexus established between complainant and M.S.E.B. showing hiring of services to constitute a consumer dispute. Hence the impugned order cannot be upheld for want of necessary ingredients to give rise to a consumer dispute. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and dismissed the complaint. Appeal allowed.