Maharashtra

Gondia

CC/14/9

DIGAMBAR S/O. GANGARAM BAGHELE, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SHRI.AVINASH VASANTRAO TUPAKAR, M.S.E.D.C.LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

MR.S.B.DAHARE

22 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GONDIA
ROOM NO. 214, SECOND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING,
AMGOAN ROAD, GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/9
 
1. DIGAMBAR S/O. GANGARAM BAGHELE,
R/O.MAJITPUR, POST.- GANGAZARI, GONDIA.
GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SHRI.AVINASH VASANTRAO TUPAKAR, M.S.E.D.C.LTD.,
SUB.DIVISION, TIRORA, DISTT-GONDIA
GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
2. MAHARASHTRA STATE DISTRIBUTION CO.LTD., THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, YASHWANT DIGAMBAR MESHRAM,
R/O. RAMNAGAR, GONDIA
GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. ATUL D. ALSI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. VARSHA O. PATIL MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:MR.S.B.DAHARE, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: KU. S. R. TIWARI, Advocate
ORDER

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The official of the opponent inspected the old meter of the complainant on 14/12/2013 and thereafter installed a new meter in place of old meter but the opponents failed to supply any receipt or meter number to complainant.  Prior to installation of the new meter, the complainant paid of Rs.8000/- on 01/10/2013 of month September and Rs.1530/- on 23/11/2013 of month October as per consumption/bills. After inspection of old meter, the opponent issued a bill of Rs.41710/- of month December 2013 on 19/12/2013.  As per the inspection report the meter is stop/band.  On perusal of bill of month December, the meter is faulty is shown in the column of current reading.  Looking to huge amount of bill, the complainant visited to the office of O.P.No.1 and requested to issue bill as per consumption.  As per correction in bill, the complainant has paid of Rs.7000/- on 09/01/2014.  Thereafter again, the opponent used to issue excessive bill as per old meter.

2.            On 15/02/2014 the opponent No.1 sent a notice and directed to pay of Rs.27700/- as provisional bill and in failure, they would cut off the electricity in house of complainant.  The complainant has submitted that it is the duty of opponents to issue correct reading bill to the complainant as per the reading of old meter/new  meter but the opponents did not do so.  The complainant was and is ready to pay bills as per consumption.  But, the opponents are not issued correct bills as per consumption.  The above act of the opponents amounts to be a deficiency in service on their part.

03.                   The residential place of complainant is at village Majitpur which comes in rural area and there are charges also less, therefore the bill sent by the opponents is very excessive and imaginary.

4.            The complainant prayed to direct the opponents to pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant on the account of mental and physical harassment accrued for unwanted litigation.

5.            After receiving the notice issued by this Forum, the O. P. No.1 & 2 are appeared before forum through their counsel and filed their written statement.

6.            In their reply, O. P. No. 1 & 2 submitted that, it is not disputed that on 14/12/2013 the official of opponent inspected old meter and after founding it faulty they installed new meter in place of new meter.  The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 also submitted that, it is not disputed that the complainant paid of Rs.8000/- on dated 01/10/2013 of month September and Rs.1530/- on dated 23/11/2014 for the month of October, 2013, but it is submitted that, this bill was issued on the basis of average consumption and not as per real consumption by complainant.  It is not disputed that after inspection old meter the opponent issued a bill of Rs.41710/- of month December, 2013 on 19/12/2013.

7.            It is submitted by the O. P. Nos. 1 &2 that, the said amount is Rs.27700/- but due to inadvertence the opponent issued this bill with amount of Rs.41710/- and as a bill till December, 2013 but in fact it is a total bill till January, 2014 and amounting Rs.27700/- and accordingly the amount and date is corrected.   It is submitted that, on perusal of complainant the correct bill of Rs.27700/- till month of January, 2014 is correctly issued to the complainant.

8.            It is admitted that, as per the residential place of complainant is at village Majitpur which comes in rural area and there are charges also less, but it is specifically denied that the bill sent by the opponents is very excessive and imaginary.  It is submitted that the bill is also calculated accordingly as per tariff of charges for consumption of electricity in rural area.  

9.            In their special pleadings opponent Nos. 1 & 2 also submitted that, the O.P.No.1 has not just collect some information and documents and he came to know this fact that the complainant with the collusion of employee of M.S.E.D.C.L. who used to visit to the house of complainant for meter reading supply him false reading by pasting small papers on meter by writing false reading in case of correct meter reading of every month and defrauded to M.S.E.D.C.L. and due to which such differences occurred. The M.S.E.D.C.L. initiated enquiry on that employee.

10.                   The complainant has filed Copy receipt  at page no. 13, Copy of electric bill for the month of September, 2013 at page no.14, Copy of receipt at page no. 15, Copy of electric bill for the month of October, 2013 at page no.16,  Copy of receipt at page no. 17, Copy of electric bill for the month of Decemberr, 2013 at page no.18, Copy of electric bill for the month of Janaury, 2014 at page no.19, Copy of electric bill for the month of February, 2014 at page no.20, Copy of notice with provisional bill and panchanama at page no. 21 to 24 on record.

11.                   The opposite parties have also filed copies of meter reading for consumer No. 530395, dated 13/11/2013, 11/09/2013, 12/08/2013, 10/05/2013, 11/04/2013, 11/03/2013, 11/02/2013 at page no. 42 to 48 to 55 on record.

12.                   The learned counsel for complainant Mr. S. B. Dahare has filed his written notes of argument that, it is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of opponent.  It is also admitted fact that the O.P. had installed new meter after inspection of old meter.  If it is found faulty, they have to supply report of old meter to complainant or filed any document on record also.  It is the duty of O.P’s.  But opponents are failed to supply any documents on record.   On the contrary, as per documents dated 14/12/2013 (inspection report), the meter is stop/bandh.  If the Hon’ble Forum has perused those documents, the Hon’ble Forum may find that the O.P. had never be issued correct bill and on the contrary they have not reduce amount of Rs.7000/- in those disputed bills also.  It means the opponents have not issued correct bills and on the contrary that they have issued excessive bills which amounts to be deficiency in service.

              As per the contention of O.P. that the complainant had managed meter reading employees and with collusion of those employees of M.S.E.D.C.L. and they had supplied false reading.  In that respect, the complainant submitted that the said fact is not pleaded by opponents in their written statement.    If the opponents are initiated any enquiry against any of the employees, the O.P’s. can file documents in the respect but they have not filed any single documents on record.

              The Hon’ble Forum passed an order dated 18/03/2014 and the same is forwarded certified copy of order by complainant.  But in spite of receiving the order of Hon’ble Forum, the opponents refused to restore electricity supply and lastly on dated 22/03/2014, the opponents have restored electricity supply.  As such the officials are very much adamant nature and the conduct is very much arbitrary and against the provision of law.  After passing the interim order by Hon’ble Forum, the complainant is paying bills regularly.  The opponents are issued excessive bills which are not as per consumption.

13.                   The counsel for O. P. No.1 & 2 Adv. Ms. Sujata Tiwari filed her written notes of argument.   In her written argument she has submitted that, on 14/12/2013 the official of opponent inspected old meter and after finding faulty they installed new meter in place of old meter.  It is also submitted that, the said amount of Rs.27700/-, but due to advertence the opponent issued this bill with amount of Rs.41710/- and as a bill till December, 2013, but in fact it is a total bill till January, 2014 and amounting Rs.27,700/- and accordingly amount and date is corrected.

              It is submitted that, after getting information and documents the O.P. No.1 came to know this fact that the complainant with the collusion of employee of M.S.E.D.C.L. who used to visit to the house of complainant for meter reading supply him false reading by pasting small papers on meter by writing false reading in case of correct meter reading of every month and defrauded to M.S.E.D.C.L. and due to which such differences occurred. The M.S.E.D.C.L. initiated enquiry on that employee.  That as such it is a fraud and intentional act of complainant and not any negligence or deficiency in service of O. Ps.

              There is absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of O. Ps.  The complainant is not entitled for any compensation or any loss as alleged.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and the compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- in the interest of justice.

14.                   As per petition and arguments and documents filed on record following points came for consideration:-

Sr. No.

Points

Findings

1.

Whether the complaint is deserve to be allowed?

NO

2.

What Order?

As per final order.

REASONING & FINDINGS

15.                    After installation of new meter a corrected bill of Rs. 27,700/- came to be issued by cancellation of meter bill of Rs.41,710/- for the period of November, 2013 to January, 2014 for the faulty meter period after inspection by Engineer of O.P. and average bill after calculation is issued as per procedure  established as per Electricity Act, 2003.  Hence, there is no negligency on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed with following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is dismissed. Accordingly the Misc. Application No. MA/01/2014 is also dismissed.

2.            No order as to costs. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ATUL D. ALSI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. VARSHA O. PATIL]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.