3/17/23, 10:02 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

Heading1
Heading2
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/1/2021
( Date of Filing : 10 Dec 2021 )
In
 
1. Sri Dilip Sen
Vill & P.O- Chandranathpur, P.S- Borkhola
Cachar
Assam ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SDO, APDCL & others
Kalain, Silchar
Cachar
Assam ...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey PRESIDENT
  Kamal Kumar Sarda MEMBER
  Deepanita Goswami MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 11 Mar 2022
Final Order / Judgement
This MISC Case has arisen out of a petition filed by One Sri Dilip Sen of village
Kalain, District- Cachar (Assam) under section 38 (8) of Chapter IV of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for passing interim order/relief.

The case of the Complainant/Petitioner in brief, is that the Dishnet Wireless limited
put up a tower in the land of the petitioner. The tower company has/had separate
meter and since 2008 to April 2020 the APDCL, Kalain generated bill against that
meter. A licence deed was executed between the petitioner and the tower company
and it was mentioned in the deed that the charges of electricity used by the
company shall be paid by the Dishnet Wireless limited. It has been alleged that
subsequently the APDCL, Kalain disconnected the electricity line of the
Complainant for non-payment of electricity bill by the Dishnet Wireless limited.
According to the petitioner the said disconnection is quite illegal and as a result of
said disconnection the petitioner has been put under great inconvenience and
professional loss. Hence, this petition for restoration of connection.

On the other hand, the version of the O.P. APDCL is that the petitioner consumed
electricity in respect of his land and the APDCL allowed connection on submission
of Indemnity Bond and NOC from the owner. It is stated that this so called
Consumer/Complainant did not pay the bill and an amount of Rs.2,87,856 has
remained outstanding including arrear which the Complainant/Petitioner  is legally
bound to pay. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of petition.

about:blank 1/2
3/17/23, 10:02 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

Heard Ld. counsel of both sides. Though the O.P. has claimed that the petitioner
submitted Indemnity Bond at the time of giving electricity connection to the tower
company i.e Dishnet Wireless Limited but the said bond or copy of the same has
not been submitted in the case. Moreover, the O.P. side has failed to show
sufficient reasons as to why the petitioner is liable to pay the pending

                                                                                                            Contd. P/2

P/2

electric charge incurred by the Tower company. The matter as to whether the
petitioner is legally bound to pay the pending electric charge of the tower company
or not that will be decided in the main case. Hence, considering all circumstances it
is ordered that the O.P. APDCL shall restore the electric connection of the
petitioner immediately and shall submit fresh bill excluding pending electric
charge incurred for the tower put up on the land of the petitioner and the petitioner
shall make payment of said bill as per norms of the O.P. company.

The misc case accordingly stands allowed on contest. No cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Kamal Kumar Sarda]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Deepanita Goswami]
MEMBER
 

about:blank 2/2