- (1.) The petitioner being the Distribution Company have challenged the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (referred to as State Commission) which affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes and Redressal Forum, Purulia in an instant revisional application.
(2.) The facts are more less undisputed. The opposite party applied for a new connection at his premises and deposited the requisite prescribed fees. The petitioner shows inability to provide new connection on the basis of an allegation that the father of the opposite party is a defaulter in payment of the electricity dues. The opposite party denied the aforesaid allegation and pleaded that there is no nexus between him and the said defaulting consumer. Subsequently the opposite party filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes and Redressal Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(3.) The District Consumer Disputes and Redressal Forum allowed the said complaint by observing that there is no nexus between the defaulting consumer and the opposite party which was affirmed by the State Commission in an appeal filed by the petitioner.;