Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Since 2004 this appeal was lying unattended. Hence, on 8th August, 2011 this matter was placed before us for disposal. On that day since both the parties were absent we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties. Accordingly, on 09.09.2011 notice was issued to both the parties. Besides this appeal was displayed on the notice board of this Commission and also on the internet board. Since both the parties are absent, we have proceeded to decide this appeal on merit.
(2) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri by passing judgement and award dated 12.07.2004.
(3) The Complainant’s grievance in the complaint was that he was having meter no.9000402091 in his house at Chiplun. Said meter was running fast. Hence, he applied for change of meter and also for testing of an old meter. He deposited `1,000/- for installation of new meter and `30/- for testing of the old meter. Thereafter on 30.12.2002 the Opponent had installed new meter in place of old one but grievance of the Complainant was that the Opponent had not given testing report of the old metre. His further grievance was that between the period 31.12.2000 to 31.12.2002 Opponent had given him inflated bills. He also pleaded that despite the persons residing in his house had decreased the electricity consumption bill had not decreased and therefore, he alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent M.S.E.B. Board. The District Forum held that the bills issued by M.S.E.B. were proper and he was given bills as per consumption. However, though meter was changed and new meter was installed the consumption was accordingly adjusted and bills were issued by the M.S.E.B. correctly and no fault could be found with the bills issued by M.S.E.B. The District Forum disagreed with the contention of the Complainant since there were lesser family members in his house and bills should have been reduced substantially. However, the District forum agreed with the contention of the Complainant that he had deposited `30/- for testing of old meter and despite depositing testing amount the M.S.E.B. had not tested the meter nor had given any test report to him. The District Forum therefore held that M.S.E.B. was guilty of deficiency in service in not giving the test report to the Complainant. The District Forum directed to refund amount of `30/- to the Complainant with interest @9% per annum. The District Forum also directed M.S.E.B. to pay to the Complainant `500/- towards mental agony and costs. Aggrieved by this order for the reliefs not granted, the Complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
(4) When this matter was called out today Appellant as well as Respondents both were absent. Hence, we perused the impugned order and we are finding that the impugned order passed by the District forum is on the whole just and proper and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the M.S.E.B. Respondent. So far as non-testing of meter is concerned there was no record of refund of `30/-. Though M.S.E.B. conducted test of the old meter removed from the house of the Complainant and since they had accepted money they should have supplied copy of test report to the Complainant. Till filing of this complaint no such test report was submitted and therefore, the District Forum rightly directed M.S.E.B. to refund amount of `30/- along with interest @9% per annum from 30.12.2002 till realization of the amount and also directed to pay `500/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of this complaint to the Complainant.
(5) In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum in partly allowing the complaint is sustainable in law and we are finding no substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 3rd October, 2011.
