Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/01/1642

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KINZAL RICE MILLS,PROP.SHRI D.K.AGRAWAL - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Mr Bharde

16 Apr 2013

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001
 
First Appeal No. A/01/1642
(Arisen out of Order Dated 09/10/2001 in Case No. CC/00/277 of District Bhandara )
 
1. THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DIVISION GONDIA,TAHSIL AND DISTT.GONDIA
GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S KINZAL RICE MILLS,PROP.SHRI D.K.AGRAWAL
R/O BOPABODIWALA,SARAFA LINE,GONDIA,TAH.AND DISTT.GONDIA
GONDIA
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER
  HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr Bharde
......for the Appellant
 
None
......for the Respondent
ORDER

 

(Passed on 16.04.2013)


 

 


 

Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member


 

 


 

          This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dtd.09.10.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhandara in Consumer Complaint No.CC/00/277, directing the appellant / o.p. – MSEB not to charge electricity bills on the basis of M.D. (Maximum Demand) tariff, cancelling the electricity bill and directing to issue fresh bill on the basis of LTPG, etc.


 

         


 

          (For the sake of brevity the appellant - board is hereinafter referred as “the o.p. – board” and the respondent as “the complainant”.)


 

 


 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-


 

1.      The complainant is the consumer of the o.p. – board. The complainant is running rice mill at Gondia and obtained electric connection having 67 HP L.D. According to the complainant, he used to pay the electricity charges regularly as per the bills issued by the o.p. – board. However, the o.p. – board issued bill dtd.25.08.2000, alleging that the complainant is using excess load of 117 HP instead of sanctioned load of 67 HP and claimed difference of energy charges. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint, challenging the bill.


 

 


 

2.      The o.p. – board filed its Written Version and resisted the complaint contending inter alia that the complainant was found using excess load than the sanctioned load. It is submitted that as per the condition of 31(c) & (d) of Electricity Supply the o.p. – board has legally issued supplementary bill. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.


 

 


 

3.      On hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record, the Forum held that the o.p. – board illegally issued the supplementary bill without consent of the complainant. In keeping with this finding the Forum allowed the complaint as noted above.


 

 


 

4.      Feeling aggrieved by that judgement & order the o.p. – board preferred this appeal.


 

 


 

5.      We heard Mr Bharde, Ld. Counsel for the o.p. – board and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order, Written Notes of Argument submitted by Adv. Mr Bharde. We also perused the copies of complaint, Written Version, evidence affidavits and the copy of disputed bill. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the complainant as the complainant remained absent despite service of notice and the appeal is proceeded exparte.


 

 


 

6.      Adv. Mr Bharde for the o.p. – board has submitted that the complainant was found using excess load of electricity. It is submitted that though the sanctioned load given to the complainant was 67 HP he was found using 117 HP and therefore, he has further submitted that as per the conditions No. 31 (c) & (d) of electricity supply condition, the o.p. – board has legally issued supplementary bill. But, the Forum without considering this fact wrongly cancelled the bill and directed the o.p. – board to issue fresh bill, etc. But he could not point out as to when the officials of the o.p. – board visited the rice mill of the complainant and found him using excess load than the sanctioned load. Therefore, we find no force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the o.p. – board as the o.p. – board has not produced any record to show that any officials of the o.p. – board visited the rice mill of the complainant and found that the complainant was using excess load of electricity.


 

 


 

5.      Further the Ld. Counsel for the o.p. – board submitted that the consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute about correctness of the meter. According to him, electrical inspector is only having jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the meter as per Indian Electricity Act, 1910, etc. But we find no force in this submission also. Because, it is not the contention of the o.p. – board that MD meter was installed.


 

 


 

7.      For the foregoing reasons, we are fully agree with the findings recorded by the Forum.  We find no glaring error or illegality in the impugned judgement & order and hence, no interference is warranted.


 

 


 

8.      In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 


 

 


 

Hence, the following order:-


 

 


 

 


 

ORDER


 

 


 

i.        The appeal is dismissed.


 

ii.       No order as to cost.


 

iii.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
 
 
[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.