AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties as above and on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book.
IT is not necessary to have a detailed order in this appeal or advertence to the factual aspects involved therein. It is noticed that appellant is one of the complainants in common complaint filed by 15 complainants being complainant No. 14. The District Forum has granted reliefs to complainant Nos. 1 to 13 and 15 vide impugned order dated 21st March, 2003 excluding the appellant herein.
On perusal of the record and on hearing the learned Advocates, we gather that the complainant who claims to be an occupant of a particular premises and where the electricity has been already made available by the respondent-Electricity Board, the meter in question does not stand in his name. It appears that the same stands in the name of earlier occupant of the said premises.
SINCE the meter of the Electricity Board did not stand in the name of the complainant he could not held to be a consumer of the Electricity Board under the Rules. That being so, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the District Forum. Across the learned Advocate for the appellant stated that the said appellant has been in occupation of the premises since long and has also been paying consumption charges and he is ready and willing to comply with the formalities for transfering the meter in his name. Upon this, the learned Advocate for the Electricity Board Mr. R.N. Telge stated that Electricity Board will consider the transfer of the meter in the name of the complainant on compliance of the requisite formalities in that behalf. We record the said statement. As far as this appeal is concerned, we find no merits therein. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies to be furnished to the parties. Appeal dismissed.