PRONOUNCED ON: 12^th March 2020

ORDER

PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The present Revision Petition is against the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 14/2017, where the appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.

2.      Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant took a single phase connection from the OPs. The bills were paid regularly by the complainant. On 20.05.2014, one bill of Rs. 7,440/- was received by the complainant. The complainant approached the office of the OP for the high amount mentioned in the bill, and the bill amount was reduced to Rs. 6,010/- and the complainant was directed by OP vide notice dated 16.01.2015 to pay the arrears within two days and threatened for the connection in case of failure.  Being aggrieved by the excessive quantum of bill, the complaint appealed District Forum and filed a complaint.

3.      The OPs in their written version submitted that the complainant did not take a single phase connection but took a regular electricity connection. She was using TV, fridge, cooler, fan, CFL Bulb  and the total load was 1190 volts. The actual reading of electricity consumption was concealed by the complainant in connivance with the meter reader. As per her will, the electricity bills were paid by her.  On knowing about such misdeed of the complainant, a bill of Rs. 7,440/- was issued to the complainant on 07.05.2014 on the basis of actual consumption. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP who sympathetically dealt with the matter and the consolidated unit rebate was adjusted and the bill was reduced to Rs. 6,010/- from Rs. 7,440/-. Even though, complainant failed to make payment of the reduced amount, therefore, she herself was responsible for disconnection of electricity supply.

4.      The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 04.11.2016 dismissed the complaint. It observed as follows:

9. It has not been stated by the complainant in her complaint that she had made the payment of bill amended by the respondents, however she has stated that she was never issued the bill of such a big amount in past, but she has not submitted any evidence or certificate to show that the electricity bill issued by the respondents is much higher than actual meter reading, however she was in a position to submit the photograph of actual meter reading before the court to prove the said fact.

10. Therefore , in view of the circumstances of the case , it is clear that the applicant in connivance with the meter reader concealed the actual reading of consumption of electricity and got entered the reading of her choice and made the payment of electricity bills accordingly and when after learning about this , on 07.05.2014 respondents issued the Bill on the basis of actual meter reading of 1414 , applicant filed the present complaint on the grounds of deficiency in service , which is not acceptable. Therefore, we reach on the conclusion that complaint of the applicant is devoid of merits. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

(para 9 and 10 of the District Forum’s Order)

(as per the translated copy furnished by the petitioner)

5.  The complainant appealed in the State Commission which vide its Order dated 05.07.2017 dismissed the complaint. It observed as follows:

14.  This is clear on perusal of the documents and evidence produced in the case that the appellant/ complainant has not made payment till today of the of the amended electricity bill of Rs. 6,010/- (Rupees six thousand ten only) to the respondents/non-applicants. The appellant/complainant has not produced any receipt of payment of this amended electricity bill in the case, however, it was the duty of the appellant/complainant that if she had the objection of the electricity bill given by the respondents/ non- applicants, the appellant / complainant had paid the electricity bill under protest and after that, she had instituted complaint against the respondents/non-applicants. When the appellant/complainant has not made payment of the electricity bill itself, then how she underwent mental agony and when the appellant/ complainant did not undergo mental agony itself, the appellant / complainant is not entitled to get mental compensation, as well as, it is not possible also to make disposal of the case on merits for want of payment of electricity bill.

15.  However, the District Forum has not considered on the complaint of the appellant/ complainant on the above point and has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant for want of evidence. But the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also that the appellant/complainant have not paid the electricity bill in dispute.

16.     Accordingly, appeal of the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, appeal of the appellant/ complainant is dismissed. Order of the District Forum dated 04.11.2016 is upheld. In view of circumstances of the case, both the parties will bear their own costs of this Appeal.

(paras 14 ,15 and 16 of the order of the State Commission)

(as per the translated copy furnished by the petitioner)

6.  Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has approached this Commission.

7.     We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record.

There is a delay of 58 days in filing the present Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, to provide opportunity to the complainant, to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.

8.     On merit, it is seen that the amended bill given by the OPs was not paid by the complainant. There is no evidence to show that the bill was paid by the complainant. Changing the meter reading in connivance with the meter reader shows the ill intention of the complainant who approached the District Forum with unclear hands. In this case, the default was with the complainant herself. Therefore, we do not find any ‘deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ committed by the OP.

9.     We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. We note in particular the observations made by the two fora quoted in paras 4 and 5 above. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. The complaint was totally devoid of merit and totally ill-conceived.   

10.  The revision petition is dismissed.