JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT                                                       

1. This dispute arises out of an allegation of incorrect billing and defective meter, as alleged by the complainant for the period referred to therein and therefore this deficiency in service on account of excessive billing was complained of before the District Commission in CC/376/2010. The complaint was decided on 02.05.2012 with a direction that the corrections in the bills shall be made and that shall be revised for the period from October, 2004 and up to the date of passing of the order.
2. In order to calculate the amount payable the District Commission calculated the consumption at an average rate of 400 units per month for the period October, 2004 till April, 2012. It was further directed that no interest or any other assessment or charges shall be levied. Further directions for adjustment of payments earlier made.
3. It was also mentioned that a detailed ledger account shall be issued to the complainant and if it is found that any amount is due the complainant should pay the same, but if the amount remains excessive the same shall be adjusted in future bills.
4. The Commission further directed that bills should be issued in future only on the basis of recorded meter readings. It was held that the consumer personal ledger had not been issued which shall be done and a cost of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded.
5. The respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited did not file any appeal against the said order, but the complainant aggrieved by the average of billing by the District Commission file an appeal no.  404 of 2012. The said appeal was however dismissed on 03.05.2013.
6. It was held that the calculations drawn by the District Commission for billing the complainant should be on an average of 400 units per month. This seems to have been accepted by the electricity department.
7. Aggrieved, the complainant has come up contending that the average has been incorrectly calculated, in as much as, the excessive billing by the electricity department for a period of five months has been wrongly included while proceeding to calculate the average  and therefore if the billing of the said initial months from October, 2004 to July, 2005 is excluded then the average will stand considerably reduced, hence, the complaint should be allowed in its entirety and the impugned order should be set aside to that extent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention to the chart appended at page 57 of the paper book and has urged that the excessive billing for the month of December, 2004 and January, 2005 was 7,383 units which have no foundation. Similarly, the readings for February, 2005 and March, 2005 was 1784 units. In April, 2005  and May, 2005 was 1414 units and in June, 2005 and July, 2005 was 1007 units, were all excessive and therefore these readings for the purpose of calculation of average should be excluded.
9. He submits that the bills after the new meter was installed indicates the average readings, which are far below  and are the correct readings, as is evident from the chart that has been placed on record by the respondents themselves. It is therefore submitted that the average ought to have been calculated by excluding this disputed period of billing and should be only on the basis of consumption after the new meter had been installed.
10. Learned senior counsel for the respondent however urged that the petitioner had been called upon by this Commission to file the Consumer Personal Ledger that has been brought on record, through IA/20743/2017 dated 23.12.2017 and as a matter fact, the said ledger reflects the correct units and the charges that are leviable and hence so far as the electricity department is concerned, it cannot be saddled with any subsidised rates of consumption charges or lesser then what has been awarded. He however submits that even though the electricity department has not filed any appeal against the order of the District Commission in order to close the controversy, and even otherwise not finding it financially feasible to carry the litigation further, yet there does not seem to be any error in the average billing methodology suggested by the District Commission, which may not be legally tenable, but in order to end the dispute the matter should be closed. He contends that there is no rule or any other possible method available for an average calculation as directed by the District Commission as such in order to draw a curtain to the proceedings, the State Commission very rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
11. In order to resolve this issue which appears to be a factual controversy on the method of calculating the average billing instead of exercising our revisional jurisdiction on a question of fact, we find it appropriate that the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission can be invoked to resolve this issue as the order of the District Commission had attained finality as against the Electricity department in terms of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Nonetheless, the error which is being pointed out by the petitioner is on the strength of the chart at annexure P-5, which is extracted herein under:

This chart is a calculation on the consumption of 91 months which comes to average of 314.05 units per month. Another chart has been placed on record, which is annexure P-6, where the calculation is on the strength of 81 months and the average indicated is 203.65 units per month.

12. The contention is that the complainant had cleared up the dues up to December 2004. It is further submitted that the bill of Rs.23930/- dated 03.03.2005 received for January and February was in dispute and was incorrect as it was based on a defective meter reading that was excessively high as indicated above. It is for this reason that the meter was changed and consequently to include the number of units which were recorded during the disputed period is erroneous and should be excluded.
13. This factual controversy therefore need not be gone into by this Commission and it appears that the State Commission did not appreciate the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner but instead of probing this contention, simply confirmed the order passed by the District Commission without deciding this issue. We therefore find it expedient and in the interest of justice that for the purpose of ascertaining as to the correct method of average calculation, the method deserves to be gone into in the light of the submissions that have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner indicated hereinabove.
14. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and reasons given above, we set aside the appellate order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai and remand the matter back to the State Commission for decision afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove preferably within six months of this order being conveyed to the State Commission. The petitioner is further directed to file a copy of the consumer personal ledger that has been filed before this Commission through IA/20743/2017, before the State Commission along with a copy of the two charts referred to hereinabove for its appreciation and final orders.
15. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 15.10.2024.