Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard Adv. Rashmi Manne for the Appellant, Adv. S. S. Jinsiwale for the Respondent No.1 and Adv. R. M. Nijampurkar for the Respondent No.2.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/1/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.164 of 2008, Mr. Shirish Prabhakar Bodhani Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. It is a grievance against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (‘the electricity company’ in short) in respect of issuing excess bills for energy consumption and after the complaint, correcting the bills, refunding the amount after retaining an amount of `30,000/- and odd. The Appellant/original Complainant claimed that amount of `30,000/- and odd together with interest thereon and also claimed compensation of `1,00,000/- for mental torture. The Forum dismissed the consumer complaint and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity).
[3] At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/original Complainant did not press this appeal as against the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2, namely – Bank of Maharashtra. Grievance is only in respect of the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1, the electricity company.
[4] It is the case of the electricity company that during the period May-2007 to December-2007 since due to the closure of the shop, energy meter consumption reading could not be taken. Energy consumption bills were issued on an average basis. Thereafter, the electricity company’s officials after tracing out the address of the Complainant, themselves contacted the Complainant and brought to his notice the energy bills. The Complainant responded stating that such amount bills could not be possible in his case. Therefore, on 14/11/2007, the officials of the electricity company again went to the shop or kiosk where the energy meter was installed to take the meter reading. Since the said shop was closed, they obtained the keys from the Complainant and thereafter opened the shop and took the reading and on this basis they got corrected their record in respect of energy consumption and levied the charges. During that period, total amount which was recovered towards energy consumption was of `1,84,393.56ps., and after recording the actual consumption as per meter reading, they themselves got corrected and refunded an amount of `1,53,300/-. The Complainant admittedly, had received it. It is further stated by the electricity company that an amount of `30,000/- and odd was adjusted by them towards the charges for energy consumption, and therefore, denied the allegations of the Complainant that said amount was illegally retained by the electricity company.
[5] In compliance with the directions given by the State Commission in appeal, certain documents & statements were produced by the electricity company inter-alia including a statement of the Complainant in respect of energy meter in question to show that an amount of `30,000/- retained by the electricity company was proper.
[6] Basically, it is the duty of the Complainant to establish his grievance. Grievance of excess billing does not survive once as stated by the electricity company to which reference is made earlier, they themselves after recording the actual energy consumption got corrected their record and refunded the amount. Once the electricity company comes with such a specific case, the Complainant was expected to answer the same in evidence or otherwise. There is no such attempt made by the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant’s affidavit also does not refer to any such circumstances which are specifically pleaded by the electricity company. Therefore, the initial onus which is on the Complainant to prima-facie establish alleged deficiency in service on the part of the electricity company, being not discharged, the electricity company is also not under an obligation to rebut the same. Besides that as earlier pointed out, the additional documents which are tendered and placed on record, also corroborate the case of the electricity company.
[7] It is not the case as such of any ‘consumer dispute’. No deficiency in service survives, if at all any, after the payment of an amount of `1,53,300/- received by the Complainant, supra. The energy consumption bills were raised against the Complainant as narrated by the electricity company in that relevant period, which were paid through the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 Bank, as per the arrangement made by the Complainant himself. The officials of the electricity company made efforts as stated by the electricity company and got everything corrected as narrated earlier. Therefore, the ultimate dismissal of the complaint as per impugned order cannot be faulted with. We find appeal devoid of substance and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced & dictated on 14th September, 2011
