Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant was the owner of Mahalaxmi Cinema Hall situated at Korian and he is a consumer under the OP and pay the electricity dues regularly. It is alleged inter-alia that after October,1998 the bill was not issued with correct amount for which the complainant informed the OP who instead of rectifying the error installed a new meter. Thereafter the meter reader came on 14.02.2000 and found that there was by-passing of energy but the complainant protested same. On the otherhand the OP issued the penal bill and threatened to disconnect the electric supply. Since, the meter was not substantiated, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version denying their liability, rather they submitted that there is by-passing of energy by the complainant for which they have issued the penal bill. Therefore,they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ Hence, it is ordered that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is allowed against the OP in part with cost. The Ops are jointly and severally liable for deficiency caused by the petitioner. The Ops are directed not to collect the penal bill amounting Rs.1,53,363.40 paise from the petitioner. The Ops are further directed to revise the bill of the petitioner from 12/98 to 5/99 taking average meter of three proceeding months from 6/99. The Ops are further directed to prepare a fresh revised bill as per the above direction and issue the same to the petitioner for payment. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner towards the compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation. This order shall be complied by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum without considering any right of the parties passed the impugned order which is illegal and improper. He submitted that the complainant has falsely alleged about defective meter but actually he has enjoyed the energy by by-passing the meter. According to him the bill has been enhanced to lakhs of ruppes due to non-cooperation of the complainant. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they are ready to pay the revised bill. He submitted that there is no such time given to pay revises bill. He supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. . It appears that during course of hearing the original complainant made submission to their Advocate that Mahalaxmi Cinema Hall has been sold away and they are ready to clear the bill if any to be payable.
10. In view of the fact and circumstances and the fact that the properties no more exists and the fact that the properties are in the hands of the legal heirs who have already sold same, we do want to interfere with the bill raised except direct to revise bill and direct to collect the bill amount from the lis pendence purchaser or their legal heirs who are directed to pay the revised bill to be raised by the appellant within a period of 45 days from today.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
