| Final Order / Judgement | (Delivered on 2/11/2017) Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member - This appeal is filed by original opposite party (for short OP), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 1/9/2010 passed by learned two members of District Forum, Bhandara, by which the complaint bearing No. CC/74/2010 is partly allowed. The learned President of District Forum, Bhandara passed the minority judgment by which he dismissed the complaint.
- The case of the original complainant/respondent No. 1 herein as set out by him in the Consumer complaint filed before the District Forum in brief are as under.
The complainant obtained electric connection to his residential house at village, Khutsaori from the opposite party ( for short OP). He paid the bills issued by OP from time to time till the month of August 2009. However thereafter the Op started issuing bills for excess units as specified in part No. 3 of the complaint, though, there was less consumption of electricity. He made complaint about the same to the OP but the OP compelled him to pay that amount. The officials of the OP inspected the meter of the complainant. Thereafter the OP issued the bill for Rs. 36,000/- for the period from 5/12/2009 to 5/2/2010, which is of excess amount. The request of complainant for correction of the bill was not considered by the OP. Again thereafter the OP issued the bill for Rs. 38,391.22/-. The complainant paid part of the bill i.e. Rs. 17,770/- . The OP directed him to pay balance amount of Rs. 20,630/-. The complainant was ready to pay energy charges as per actual consumption at least 400 units in an average. But his request was not considered by the OP. The OP has disconnected electric supply of the complainant on 18/03/2010 illegally. Hence he filed the consumer complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and seeking direction to the OP to withdraw the bill of Rs. 20,630/- to issue corrected and proper bill as per consumption and to restore the electric supply of the complainant and to pay him suitable compensation with cost. - The OP appeared before the Forum and filed reply/written version. The OP raised objection about the maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum on the ground that the grievance pertains to assessment and computation of the charges of energy and calibration of electric current and hence action can be taken under provision of Electricity Act 2003. The electric connection was given for domestic purpose only but the complainant used the energy for running floor mill (Atta Chakki) at this resident and converted the connection into commercial category. Therefore the electric bills were issued to him on the basis of commercial category only. It is denied that the bills are issued showing excessive consumption. The bill for Rs. 38,391.22/- was issued after deducting Rs. 17,770/- from that amount claiming Rs. 20,630/-. The bills were issued as per meter reading. The last bill was issued for 20 months by making bifurcation. The details of the bills and reading are also given in para No. 2 of the said reply. Therefore it was prayed by the OP that the complaint may be dismissed.
- During the pendency of that complaint, the electric supply of complainant was restored as per impugned direction given by District Forum. Thereafter the District Forum heard both the parties and considered the evidence brought on record. The learned two members of the District Forum, Bhandara unanimously passed impugned order by which they partly allowed the complaint. They cancelled the bill dated 25/02/200 issued for Rs. 3,391.22/- and directed the OP to determine the consumption of complainant in presence of witness by preparing panchanama and issue revise bill of 18 months prior to the date 25/02/2010 and to adjust in the said revise bill Rs. 17,770/- and Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the complainant and to pay him compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of 2000/-. The said order passed by majority is challenged in this appeal by the OP.
The learned President passed an order on 3/8/2010 in the said complaint and he thereby dismissed that complaint. - We have heard learned advocate of both the parties and perused entire record of the appeal. The respondent remained absent though duly served with notice. Therefore the appeal is heard exparte against him.
- The learned advocate of the appellant also filed written notes of arguments which we have perused. The learned advocate of the appellant reiterated the aforesaid case of the original OP as set out in its reply and submitted that the respondent herein used the electricity for floor mill, that is for commercial purpose though electric connection was given to him only for domestic purpose and accordingly the bills were issued as per commercial use from time to time on the basis of actual meter reading and the District Forum has not properly considered the said aspects in the impugned order passed by majority. Thus, according to him the bill for Rs. 20,630/- was rightly issued by the appellant to the respondent and hence the impugned order passed by majority may be set aside.
- It is pertinent to note that though disputed bill was issued in respect of the electric consumption for last 20 months by making assessment on commercial basis, there was no evidence before the District Forum to prove that the domestic connection was used for commercial purpose by the respondent. There was no inspection report on record in support of the said case of the appellant. No explanation is given by the appellant why the inspection report was not prepared and produced before the Forum in support of its case. In our view bare words of the appellant are not sufficient to accept and believed that the respondent/original complainant used the electric connection for commercial purpose.
- Moreover, we find that when the actual meter reading was available all the times, there is no proper explanation on the part of the appellant as to why the electric bill was issued for 20 months, which is challenged by the complainant. We also find that mere mentioning on the bills that the connection is for commercial purpose is not sufficient in the absence of corroborative evidence. In our view, the District Forum has rightly held that the disputed bill is illegal and District Forum has rightly directed the OP/appellant to issue the revised bills as stated in the Clause No.3 of the operative part of the impugned order. Moreover the District Forum below has rightly granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The District Forum has also rightly cancelled the bill dated 25/2/2010 for Rs. 38,391.22/-. We find no merits in this appeal and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER - The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to cost in appeal.
- Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
| |
