Per Mr. S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Juicial Member :
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 23.10.2009 passed in consumer complaint No. 164/2008, Shri Shrimant G. Patil V/s Engineer(Comm.), Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli,(‘the Forum’ in short).
Admittedly, electric energy was supplied for his agricultural electric pump of 5 H.P. to the appellant/original complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant). In the year 1997, due to drought condition, he could not pay energy bills and thus, the energy supply was discontinued. Thereafter, on 29.1.2007, complainant received energy bill for arrears of `45,900/- and another bill on 26.4.2007 for `48,200/-. The complainant submitted that once energy supply was discontinued, no such bills can be raised against him. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint requesting relief ( by way of declaration) to cancel the bills dated 29.1.2007 and 26.4.2007. The Forum rejected the principle reliefs claimed. However, as a notional penalty of `5000/- were saddled on Opponent who is respondent in this appeal and also further awarded the cost of `2000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that no appeal is preferred by them against the impugned order. However, since the relief of declaration for cancellation of energy bills is not granted, the complainant preferred this appeal.
Heard both sides. In the instant case, dispute relates to charging of bills. Under the circumstances, particularly, referring to the policy adopted while supplying energy to the electric pump on the basis of H.P. on ad-hoc basis, the complainant was under obligation to show that the bill of arrears raised is prima facie erroneous. The complainant failed to discharge such onus. Apart from this, it is the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. which is raising the bills for energy consumption or against the energy supplied on H.P. basis. Therefore, if there is any deficiency in service then it is on part of the said company and not on the part of Electric Engineer Commerce) or the Chief Engineer (Commerce) of the said Company. Since the said company is not a party, the reliefs claimed cannot be granted.
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in appeal and we hold and pass accordingly the following order :
Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 28th September 2011.
