Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1919

RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MPMKVVCO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.M.L.MISHRA

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1919 OF 2016

 (Arising out of order dated 21.10.2016 passed in Execution Case No.26/2016 by District Commission, Bhind)

 

                                                    

RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA.                                                                             …         APPELLANT.

 

                Versus

 

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M. P. MADHYA KSHETRA

VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED.                                                                   …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.07.2024

 

     Shri M. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

     Ms. Sapna Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                  The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short ‘District Commission’) in Execution Case No.26/2016 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the application filed by the complainant under execution holding that the opposite party-electricity company has complied with the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the District Commission in C.C.No.78/2014.

-2-

2.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the opposite party-electricity company did not comply with the original order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014. The electricity company did not install the new meter promptly also they charged the cost of the newly changed meter of Rs.1,250/- whereas there was no such direction in the impugned order. He argued that the District Commission did not consider this aspect that in the month of June-2015, the electricity company raised bill illegally for a sum of Rs.18,235/- on the basis of average consumption of 150 units. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-electricity company supporting the impugned order argued that the electricity company has complied with the order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014 completely and therefore the District Commission after considering all aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the execution application. She prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Also perused the impugned order and the order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014. In the final order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014 the District Commission partly allowing the complaint 

-3-

directed the opposite party-electricity company to install new meter within 15 days and it will be the discretion of the electricity company about the place of installation of meter. It was further directed that since 02.11.2012 till installation of meter, the electricity company shall raise the amended bill on the basis of average consumption of 70 units without any surcharge. Cost of Rs.1,200/- is also awarded to be adjusted in future bill.

5.                From the record we find that the electricity company in compliance of final order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014 installed the new meter and raised amended bill for a sum of Rs.11,513/- was issued in which cost amount of Rs.1,200/- was also adjusted which is evident from Annexure B filed by the electricity company and bill C-1 filed by the complainant.

6.                So far as the contention of the complainant that the electricity company has illegally charged the cost of the new meter is concerned, no such directions in this regard was made in the final order that the electricity company is not entitled to recover cost of the meter. The complainant is bound to pay the cost of the meter. Similarly the objection with regard to further bills on the basis of average consumption of 150 units per month is concerned, the District Commission in the final order has specifically

-4-

mentioned that the electricity company since 02.11.2012 till installation of meter can raise bill on the average consumption of 70 units per month without any surcharge. There was no such direction that forever, the electricity company can raise the bills on the basis of average consumption of 70 units per month.

7.                For the foregoing discussion, we find that the electricity company complied with the final order dated 22.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.78/2014 in its correct perspective. The District Commission after considering all aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the execution application. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

8.                In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                 Member