PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)(in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 768 of 2018 dated ­­­­03.02.2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Latur (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2015 dated 12.01.2015.

2.     The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that he had obtained an electricity connection (No. 6140205296690) for domestic purpose from the respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd on 04.05.2010 with a sanctioned load of 0.20 kilowatts. Due to lightning on 13.08.2014 the meter installed got burnt and the respondent installed a new meter on 07.10.2014. While the average consumption of the household was 60-70 units, with the installation of the new meter, the consumption recorded as per bill dated 07.10.2014 for the period 31.08.2014 to 30.09.2014 was 6292 units amounting to a bill of Rs 83,990/- which was exorbitant. This was conveyed by him to the respondent on 20.10.2014. The next bill dated 08.11.2014 was for consumption of 478 units for Rs 89,590/- and the subsequent bill dated 09.12.2014 was for 4 units and amount of Rs 64,090/-. His complaint in writing was not addressed and instead electricity supply was disconnected. Even thereafter, respondents continued to issue a bill for the period 31.10.2014 to 30.11.2014 for Rs 64,090/-. He therefore filed Consumer Complaint no. 09 of 2015 before the District Forum. Vide its order dated 09.09.2015 the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that:

        (i)      The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed;

          (ii)      It is ordered to the respondent that, the bills dated 07.10.2014, 08.11.2014 and 09.12.2014 are hereby cancelled;

(iii)     It is ordered to the respondent that, the disconnected electricity of the complainant be connected within three days from the date of receipt of order;

(iv)     It is ordered to the respondent that, from the period of disconnection till its reconnection the electricity bills are here by cancelled and it shall not be recovered from the complainant in future; and

(v)      It is ordered to the respondent that, the respondent shall pay Rs.3000/- towards the mental and physical harassment and Rs.2000/- towards the expenses of the complaint within 30 days from the receipt of the order. 

3. This order was challenged by the respondent before the State Commission in First Appeal No. 768 0f 2015 which was allowed the appeal vide its order dated 03.02.2017 and ordered as below as:

“It is seen from the record that complainant received bill of excessive amount but he did not deposit the same as he has grievances about the excessive. It is also came on record that after revealing the fact that wrong excessive bill was issued it was corrected by MSEDCL. It is seen from the record that complainant did not deposit the electricity charges since year 2010 till 2014. In our view complainant did not approach the form with clean hand. But District Consumer Forum ignored the said fact while allowing complaint. Therefore, said order is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing appeal. Hence, the following order:

1. Appeal is allowed;
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is hereby quashed and set aside;
3. Complaint stands dismissed; and
4. No order as to cost.”

4.     The petitioner has approached this Commission impugning this order in this revision petition and prayed for setting aside the order of the State Commission and any other appropriate order on the grounds that the finding of the District Forum has not been dealt with or disproved by the State Commission. It has been admitted by the respondent that the bills were wrong and that the faulty meter has been changed as per para 5 of the impugned order. It is averred that the finding of the District Forum that the respondent did not file a report of a technical expert has not been addressed by the State Commission in the order and the submissions of the petitioner have not been considered.

5.     Respondent was placed ex-parte on 25.05.2018. Petitioner filed his written synopsis. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard. Records, including the respondent’s submissions before the lower fora and additional documents placed on record by the petitioner were perused carefully.

6.     The fact of the abnormally high bills for a domestic connection issued to the petitioner have been admitted by the respondent. The District Forum has noted that there was no report of a technical expert on this aberration with regard to the petitioner’s normal trend of bills. Respondent has also admitted that the meters were faulty since he submits that these were changed. The State Commission has concluded vide para 6 of its order that even after corrected bills were issued the petitioner did not deposit the billed amount  between 2010 and 2014 and therefore he did not approach the District Forum with clean hands and that the complaint be quashed for this reason.  

7.     This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 26(b) is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record. In the instant case, the findings are not concurrent. The Commission can interfere if findings are either perverse or when the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse if they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.

8.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 SCC 286 that:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. …”

9.     It is apparent that the impugned order of the State Commission has not set out any reasons in a considered manner while disposing the appeal against the order of the District Forum. Except to point out that the petitioner has not paid the electricity dues for the period 2010 to 2014, it has not examined any of the reasons in the order of the District Forum through a reasoned order. This is a material irregularity and makes the order perverse. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

10.   In the light of the foregoing, I find merit in the revision petition which is allowed with the following directions:

(i)     the impugned order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 768 of 2015 is hereby set aside and the order of the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2015 is affirmed;

(ii)    the order of the District Forum shall be implemented within 4 weeks of the receipt of this order failing which the amounts awarded shall be paid with 10% rate of interest from the date of the order till its realisation;

(iii)    the petitioner shall settle the dues of the respondent, if any, for the period 2010 to 2014 based upon the normal pattern of consumption of electricity by him within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order;

(iv)   the electricity connection of the petitioner shall be restored along with an electricity meter of a good quality at its cost   within three days of receipt of this order in case it has been disconnected pursuant to the order of the State Commission.