Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharya, President— This is an appeal against an order dated 13.7.95 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 170/95 dismissing the appellant-complainant’s case for restoration of his electric line which was disconnected about 10 to 11 years ago. The appellant filed the aforesaid case before the Consumer Disputes Forum sating that his electric line was disconnected and that he was suffering for want of electricity and that he wants to have either a new A.C. connection or reconnection of the old D.C. Line. The learned Consumer Disputes Forum held that the case was barred by limitation.

2. We have seen the lower Forum record. It is a fact that the line was disconnected about 10 to 11 years back. In fact we do not see that the prayer made before the District Forum can be said to be barred by limitation. A consumer has a right to pray for a new connection at any time under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 even if his previous line was disconnected long ago.

3. Coming now to the prayer of the petitioner and the objection raised by the C.E.S.C. before Consumer Disputes Forum a formal petition has already been filed, it appears that the C.E.S.C. has raised certain policy objection in the matter. They have objected that no new A.C. connection can be given when there is already a D.C. connection in the house and that or for such new connection a D.C. consumer must agree to the change over to A.C. line. In this case the appellant tried to contact the other consumer in his house who is his tenant but the notice sent to him has returned with the remark ‘left’. The appellant is actually the landlord of the house. Bu t in such circu instances it is not possible on his part to procure the consent of his tenant who is stated to be inimical to him. On the other hand the C.E.S.C. has objected to give reconnection of the old D.C. line on the ground that their new policy is not to give such reconnection. The appellant is really put to a vicious circle. He cannot get the A.C. line because he had an existingD.C. line and he cannot get the D.C. lone because the Company’s policy is not to give new D.C. connection.

4. In such circumstances what will a consumer do. If a consumer’s D.C. line is disconnected for his failure to pay the electric charges, can he not get reconnection after paying the reconnection fee after one month ? Will the Company raise the objection that no new connection is possible under the policy of the Company. If a D.C. line disconnected recently can be restored, why should such a line not be restored if the disconnection was made a few years back? Apparently Company has not considered the problem from this angle. We, therefore, think that the consumer concerned should be treated sympathetically. I think Company should either waive their objection to give a new connection in the absence of a consent of other consumers in the same premises or it should reconnect the D.C. line already in existence within a reasonable period.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the C.E.S.C. is directed to give connection to the appellant, either D.C. or A.C. on the basis of the observations made above within three weeks from the deposit of reconnection fee and observation of (sic).

Appeal allowed.

_