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 dated 11.02.2019 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 513 of 2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 382 of 2013 dated 03.03.2017.

2.     The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that he had purchased a bungalow from petitioner no. 2 in 2007 and found that the electricity meter installed was defective. He therefore requested the respondent no. 1 to replace the meter which was done on 09.06.2008 for which Rs 700/- was wrongly recovered from him as the respondent was in the process of recovering all meters. This meter was also found by him to be faulty after a few billing cycles. The respondent began issuing bills on an average usage basis till March 2012 when he was presented a bill for 3055 units amounting to Rs 10,390/-. A complaint was filed on 29.06.2012 with the respondent followed by complaints on 16.02.2013 and 16.08.2013. The respondent then changed the meter on 20.07.2013. The petitioner has claimed that the bill for Rs 10,350/- charged in March, 2012 is illegal and needs to be reversed along with the Rs 700/- charged for replacement of meter in 2008.

3.     The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner in Consumer Complaint No. 382 of 2013 on 03.03.2017 on the ground that the electricity bill for 3055 units was correctly computed after subtracting the actual usage from the units consumed as per the meter in March 2012. As there was no excess charged, no deficiency in service was concluded.

4.     The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission against this order also came to be dismissed on the grounds that the the petitioner was trying to take advantage of the single instance of an electricity meter being found to be faulty. The order notes that the average billing was don since on several occasions the meter was not available or was inaccessible for recording the reading and hence average reading was recorded for the purpose of billing. The order notes that there were 21 instances when average billing had to be done. The order is detailed and has considered the issues raised by the petitioner and examined the facts and evidences submitted before it. The order reads:

“(xviii)               The Hon’ble State Commission failed to understand the meaning of “INACCE” in proper prospective manner and wrongly says in the judgment that, meter was normal throughout the dispute period and when it was available for the reading, then reading was recorded, this finding on the part of the State Commission is totally wrong and illegal and this finding is on assumption and presumption and when law never permit its, INACCE means meter is available for the reading but meter was not giving the reading. For that purpose clarification by respondent authority filed on record and which is Exhibited J and marked as Exb S.

(xix)          March 2012 the bill under faulty meter was issued by respondent company, that please be quashed. The said bill are touching to the March 2012 – 3055 units, April 2012 -255 units, July 2012 – 559 units, August – 180 units, September 2012 – 300 units, November 2012 – 229 units please be quashed and average bill be considered till June 2013 and passed the order to refund rest amount to the appellant..

(xx)          The respondent denial the complaint of petitioner and also denied representation by petitioner, which plead in written statement. Hence, the respondent company is Government company and they falsely denied representation on part of the petitioner, hence, this was not good on the part of “king/ state, king never do wrong with the citizen”, because this electricity company is belong to Government of Maharashtra.

(xxi)          The lower Court failed to accept true case of petitioner and dismiss it, even not consider that the harassment headache on the part of the respondent company. The State Commission out to have allowed the appeal and grant the compensation to the petitioner.

(xxii)         From October 2008 till February 2012 following units are charged by respondent electricity company:

Units of September 2008 (from the date of replacing new meter no.9001666288.

Meter is showing 1401 units in May 2010 and then suddenly in the month of March 2012 – 3055 units bill was given when actually reading as per faulty meter claim by respondent, respondent calculate 4455 units (the appellant is not admitting this reading under the faulty meter), in short actually 3905 units are charged and recovered, hence, under arithmetical mistake and misrepresentation, on this ground also the judgment of State Commission and District Forum please be quashed and set aside”.

5.      The petitioner has filed this petition on the very same facts and evidences it had raised before the lower fora. His contention is that the electricity meter installed in 2008 was faulty and his subsequent complaints were not addressed. The subsequent bill in March 2012 was also wrong according to him as it was based on a faulty meter that he had been complaining about to the respondent. The respondent has also argued on the same lines that the meter that was faulty was replaced and now a correct bill based on actual reading has been presented for payment. Accordingly, there has been no deficiency in service on his part.

6.     Heard the petitioner in person. None appeared for the respondent despite being noticed. Respondent’s written reply was considered as his final submissions. We have perused the records carefully.

7.      There is no issue on facts or evidence that the petitioner has been able to highlight that has not been considered by the District Forum or the State Commission. The arguments of the petitioner have been considered by both the fora and reasoned findings arrived at. The impugned order of the State Commission is detailed and reasoned on facts and the evidence presented before it. It is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in the appeal. Findings of facts of the District Forum are also based on evidences and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. As there is no factual error or perversity in the order of the State Commission that has been pointed out, the revision petition is liable to be rejected.

8.     This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts. It can interfere with the findings of the foras below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when 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. The power of this Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held as under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.”

10.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 and held as under:

“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. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

11.   It is apparent that foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.  I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.