CESC LTD Vs. RAM PRASAD DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an apeal against an order dated 12.4.94 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C. D. F. Cases Nos.3436 to 3457 of 93 and 3486 to 3487 of 93. In the aforesaid cases a group of complainants at different premises filed complaints that although they had applied for electric connection to the C. E. S. C. Ltd. the said Co. did not agree to grant any electric connection and to instal new meters on certain grounds. In short the complainant's objection to the grant of electric connection to the complainants was that the complainants were actually beneficiaries of the previous meter holders who were in arrear of charges for electricity to the tune of Rs.81,605.13 P. The C. E. S. C. Ltd. further contended that the complainants were liable to clear up the arrears in respect of the previous meters and that unless this was done they were not entitled to new electric meters. The C. E. S. C. also contended that the appellants were not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the C. D. F. could not grant any relief under the said Act. On a consideration of the cases put forth by both the parties, C. D. F. had rejected the contentions of the C. E. S. C. Ltd. and held that the complainants were consumers under the Act and that they were not liable for the arrears due from previous consumers. Accordingly the District Forum ordered that the C. E. S. C. should provide a new meter to each of the complainants within one month after observing all necessary formalities. "

(2.) The C. E. S. C. Ltd. is the appellant here. They have reiterated the contentions which were raised before the C. D. F. and have stated in their Memo of Appeal that the points raised by them were not properly decided by the District Forum. They have also stated that they should be given an opportunity to establish that the applicants for new meters were beneficiaries of the old consumers who were in arrear of a huge amount of electric charges.

(3.) The main point of argument on behalf of the applicant is that the O. P.-complainants were not the consumers. In this respect they have relied on a decision of the Karnataka State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission reported in Ahmed Ul-Haq V/s. Asst. Engineer, K. E. B. Chamarajannagar and Ors., 1991 2 CPJ 455. In the aforesaid case the complainants had filed a registration fee of Rs.50/- and had deposited a sum of Rs.12,470/- being three months minimum deposit. The Karnataka State Commission held that the aforesaid deposit of money could not be treated as consideration for hiring the services of the Karnataka Electricity Board. Accordingly it was held that complainant was not a consumer and accordingly the complaint was dismissed.