Date 03/12/2012
O R A L O R D E R
Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 14/11/2007 passed in C.C.39/2007 by the Dist. Forum, Beed, by which the said complaint has been allowed.
2. The complainant in that complaint made allegations in brief that he runs a garage and he had taken electric connection from the opponent for running that garage. There is electric power load of 38 H.P. H.power connected to the said electric connection. The capacitor has been also installed to the electric meter of the said electric connection. The complainant has paid regularly bills issued from time to time by the appellant. On 23/06/2005 the members of flying squad of the opponent came to the said garage and they inspected the said meter and capacitor. There upon opponents presented bill dated 23/06/2005 to him ( complainant ) imposing charges of Rs 25,920/- as penalty for non working of the said capacitor. It was never stated in any of the bills that the capacitor is out of order and not working. The penalty of Rs 25,920/- imposed by the opponent is therefore illegal. There is only control of the opponent on the said capacitor and it was also binding on them to inform complainant that the capacitor is out of order and not working properly. Therefore according to the complainant there is deficiency in service provided by both the opponents and therefore he prayed that the bill under which penalty of Rs 25,920/- is charged be cancelled and he may be awarded compensation of Rs 12,500/- towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint.
3. Both the opponents filed their written version and contested the claim. They submitted that there is control of the consumer on the capacitor and it was his responsibility to test the capacitor and then install. It is admitted that the flying squad of Beed inspected the garage of the meter and capacitor of the complainant. They submitted that flying squad is necessary party to the present complaint. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The appellant has been issued bill imposing penalty after the flying squad found that the capacitor was not working. It is the responsibility of the consumer to maintain and get repaired the capacitor. The opponent has no concern with the meter reader. They therefore submitted that complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. The Dist. Forum below on giving opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties and considering the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the meter reader should have intimated the complainant that the capacitor was not working. It held that the complaint is not bad for non joinder of necessary party. It also observed that the member of the flying squad are the employees of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and hence, they are not necessary party. It also observed that no affidavit of any of the members of the flying squad is filed and therefore the report of the flying squad is not proved. It also observed that it was the responsibility of the concerned engineer of the opponent to inspect capacitor and give remarks about the same, but no such report showing inspection of the capacitor is produced. Therefore it came to the conclusion that the deficiency on the part of the appellant is proved and accordingly it cancelled the bill of Rs 25,920/- and directed the appellant to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs 3000/- towards mental harassment and Rs 1000/- towards cost of the complaint.
5. Feeling dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the original opponents have preferred this appeal.
6. It is submitted by Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale that as per tariff, where the capacitor attached to power meter is not working or out of order, consumer is liable for penalty. He has drawn our attention to the tarrif dated 01/12/2003 in support of his said submission. He thus argued that it was the responsibility of the original complainant to show that the capacitor was working properly and the flying squad has rightly issued bill for the aforesaid amount of Rs 25,920/- when said capacitor was not working. He thus submitted that the Dist. Forum has not considered the said aspect in right prospectives and it resulted in to erroneous judgment and order, which may be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Adv.S.P.KatKatneshwarkar supported the impugned and order. He submitted that it is not the responsibility of the consumer i.e. original complainant to see as to whether the
capacitor is working properly. He also submitted that the responsibility is of appellant only to get inspected capacitor from time to time and note the same in the bill. He also submitted that complainant being a layman and not an expert he can not ascertain that the capacitor is not working properly. He therefore submitted that appeal may be dismissed.
7. The perusal of the Low Tension Tariff Booklet produced before us shows that, “ Whenever any Low Tension consumer, having metered supply has not installed the power factor correction equipment i.e. L.T. capacitors of adequate size, he will be penalised @ 10 % of his pro-rate/assessed monthly bill. However, in respect of LT consumers with flat rate tariff the penal charges for non installation of capacitors of adequate size will be levied @ 20 % on their pro-rata/assessed monthly bill.
8. Thus perusal of the said tariff shows that penalty can be imposed only when the capacitor is not installed. In the instance case capacitor has been already installed. We are therefore of the view that the aforesaid tariff which is regarding non installation of the capacitor is not applicable to present case. We thus find that the complainant is not liable to pay penalty of Rs 25,920/- for non working of the said capacitor. It is the responsibility of the appellant only to see as to whether capacitor is working properly or not. The complainant is not an expert to know the whether capacitor is working properly. Therefore we hold that the Dist. Forum has rightly considered the evidence brought on record. We also find that flying squad which is working under the appellant is not necessary party to the complaint. We thus find no merits in the appeal.
. O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
