Mr. Justice V.S. Kokje, President — This is an appeal by an employee of the M.P. Electricity Board, Sagar against the order of District Forum, Sagar holding him personally responsible for disconnection of electric supply of the complainant and directing him personally to pay compensation to the complainant.

2. The complainant contends that he was a tenant of one Makhanlal alias Munnalal till 8.10.1990 on which date he purchased the property in which his shop is situated. In this shop since 1980, an electric connection existed. This connection was taken by the complainant earlier as a tenant but from 8.10.1990 the complainant himself became the owner of the house. According to the complainant his neighbour Manoj Kumar was no in good terms with him and in order to harass the complainant he conspired with non-applicant No. 2 (Appellant herein) and got the electric supply of the complainant disconnected.

3. Before disconnecting the electric supply, the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter called as 'MPEB') sent a notice dated 25.11.91 to the complainant calling upon him to produce consent letter from Manoj Kumar as also to produce a lease-deed in favour of said Shri Manoj Kumar executed by the complainant, failing which the electric supply was threatened to be disconnected. The complainant sent a reply that he had become owner of the house and Manoj Kumar had to do nothing with the house. Again another notice dated 4.3.92 and a third notice dated 9.3.92 were served on the complainant and despite a reply having been filed, on 18.3.92 the M.P.E.B. disconnected the electric supply of the complainant. The complainant therefore, approached the District Forum, Sagar with his complaint.

4. The District Forum held that there was no reasonable cause for disconnection of electric supply but held only non-applicant No. 2 (Appellant herein) personally responsible and ordered payment of Rs. 200/- per day for the period of disconnection as compensation to the complainant. The appellant was also ordered to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant and Rs. 500/- to the M.P.E.B. as expenses of the case.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record. A look at the complaint shows that proper care while drafting the complaint has not been taken by complainant or his Counsel. The Opposite Parties as impleaded are Divisional Engineer, M.P.E.B. Cant, Sagar, Shri Kishorilal Ghoshi, Junior Engineer, M.P.E.B., Khurai, District Sagar and Divisional Engineer, M.P.E.B. Tahsil Beena, District Sagar. Actually, MPEB had to be impleaded as a party instead of three Officers who were impleased as Opposite Parties. We find from the record that actually the case fought by the M.P.E.B. on behalf of the non-applicants and, therefore, the default would not be fatal. But all the same we would like to emphasis that proper care has to be taken by the complainants while impleading Opposite Parties so that they may not have to suffer ultimately while enforcing the order in their favour on the technical ground that the real Opposite Party has not been impleaded. In this particular case on the facts and in the circumstances as already pointed out M.P.E.B. has been sufficiently represented and it has not raised any such objection either.

6. Since the M.P.E.B. has been totally exonerated by the District Forum and only the appellant a Junior Engineer has been held personally responsible for disconnection of electricity and consequently has been ordered to pay compensation from his own pocket, the main question arises is whether such direction could be given by the District Forum.

7. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the rules made thereunder do not specifically provide as to who would be the Opposite Party in case of a complaint. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act defines the term 'complaint' as under:—

“2. Definitions.— (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —

(a) ———-

(b) —————

(c) "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made b