Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. complainant whose complaint No.79/2003 was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik by judgement dated 25/01/2005. While dismissing the complaint, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum invoked Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and directed to pay cost of `2,000/- to the opponent by the complainant. As such org. complainant has filed this appeal.
2. The complainant had filed consumer complaint against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), Nashik alleging that on 15/07/2002 Flying Squad of the opponent/Company had inspected his Super Sale Corporation and it was found that he was using more than sanctioned load. The Flying Squad recorded Panchanama and it has issued notice of `1,12,013/- to the complainant and directed him to pay the said bill. If the bill is not paid, there was threat that his connection would be discontinued. The complainant paid `25,000/- and then sent notice on 17/04/2003 to opponent through his Advocate. Despite legal notice, opponent-Company did not withdraw the bill and therefore, he filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and claim amount of `50,000/- and also claimed `5,000/- towards costs.
3. The opponent/Company filed written version and pleaded that complainant is not a consumer since he was using electricity for commercial purpose. The opponent/Company also pleaded that initially the complainant had taken electricity connection for the sanctioned load of 30 HP. But at the time of inspection by Flying Squad, he was found using 80 HP. load. His meter reading was slowed by 42% and therefore, he was asked to pay a bill of `10,946/- and for increased consumption of load he was asked to pay a fine of `1,01,067/-. The complainant was given all the necessary details. The complainant himself is a retired Electrical Inspector and he knows all the Rules & Regulations and still he filed false complaint and therefore, it pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum considering the documents and affidavits placed before it held that the complainant had failed to prove report of Flying Squad or visit was bad in law or false or bogus. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed that after receiving complaint, opponent/Company official convinced the complainant as to how his connection was not legal and proper. Report prepared by Flying Squad of the opponent’s officials clearly mentioned that all the electrical instruments were being used by the complainant. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also agreed with the opponent’s contention that in place of 30 HP. load, the complainant was using 80 HP. load and thereby he invited penalty and enhanced bill. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore held that there was no substance in the complaint and it was pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs of `10,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, appeal has been filed by org. complainant.
5. After filing this appeal, appellant did not turn up to see what happened to his appeal. It was lying unattended since 2005. The appellant had not bothered to take even first circulation to issue notice to the respondent. On 18/08/2011 this appeal was placed before us for disposal. On finding that both the parties are absent, we directed the office to issue notice to the appellant returnable today i.e. 18/10/2011. On 01/10/2011 office has recorded endorsement that it has sent notice to the appellant by ordinary post. Despite sending notice, appellant is absent today. We therefore perused the impugned order and we are finding that dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper and we cannot take a different view than the view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in its impugned judgement. The order of dismissal in our view is appearing to be sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal preferred by org. complainant. Electricity bill issued to the appellant was properly issued by the opponent/Company after Flying Squad inspected the premises of the appellant and found that in place of 30 HP. load, the consumption of the appellant was to the extent of 80 HP. load and therefore, on the basis of increased consumption, bill was issued along with penalty rightly imposed by the opponent/Company. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 18th October 2011.
