IMPORTANT POINT
Where father and son both have
bhumi-swami rights on separate and distinct land, new electric connection cannot be denied to son on ground that the father was a
defaulter.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (hereinafter called as “District Forum” for short), in complaint case No.16/2008, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the respondents, has been

dismissed.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein had deposited Rs.9,056 on 10.1.2008 in the office of respondents for providing electricity connection for his agricultural land.

3. The case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum, was that the land on which the connection was sought, was of his bhumi-swami right, but the Electricity Board, has not provided electricity connection within a reasonable time for his field, in spite of legal provision that such connection, was required to be provided within 15 days from the date of deposit of the amount for the same. Many times, request was made by him before the Electricity Board, but without any avail. Ultimately, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation of Rs. 5,000.

4. The respondents in reply, have averred that on inquiry, it was found that father of the appellant, Shri Naresh Kohali was a defaulter and Rs.10,48,371 was due against him and regarding which the matter was pending before the High Court. It has also been averred that when some amount of electricity charges is due regarding a premise, then connection, cannot be provided in that premise, unless the amount due was paid. It is alleged that complainant has made application regarding the same premise, where there was already a connection in the name of his father, who was a defaulter.

5. Learned District Forum, agreed with the defence taken by the respondents and dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein.

6. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused record of the District

Forum.

7. From the record of the District Forum, it appears that copies of bhu adhikar pushtika were filed by the appellant herein before the District Forum, to show at land in the name of the appellant herein and the land in the name of his father, were separate and distinct. Both of them were having separate bhu adhikar pushtika. The appellant herein, is exclusive bhumi-swami of land bearing Survey No.132 and 105/2 having total area 2.91 hectare of the village Ghodari, whereas his father Naresh Kohli has been shown as exclusive bhumi-swami of land bearing Survey No.105/1, 136/2 & 137/1 having total area 1.87 hectare. Land belonging to the complainant, as well as his father are in the same Patwari halka of village Ghodari and these land have been shown as irrigated land. These two documents show that the father as well as son, both are bhumi-swami of separate and distinct land and appellant herein, made application for providing electricity connection on the land belonging to him exclusively and of his bhumi-swami right. He can very well make application for obtaining such connection for his land and the default in making payment committed by his father, who is very well alive, cannot come in the way of grant of connection to the appellant.

8. Learned District Forum has placed reliance on a reported decision of Maharashtra State Commission in the case of Surjeet Singh v. M.T.N.L.1 but it was case under the Telegraph Act and in that case son and father both were residing in the same premise and for that premise, telephone bill was due in the name of father and therefore, new connection in the name of his son was denied, which was found justified in view of provisions of the Telegraph Act.

9. The facts of the present case are altogether different. Here land of the appellant/complainant, is separate and distinct from the land which belongs to his father, on which bills of electricity charges were due regarding which the case is also pending before the High Court. In view of this factual scenario, the respo