Date  : 26.03.2013

Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

1.       This appeal is preferred by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by District Forum Beed in C.C.No.92/06, whereby the appellant is held liable for deficiency in service.  Respondent herein is the original complainant.

2.       The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that, the respondent/org.complainant is a consumer of appellant and his consumer number is 579010037831.  That, initially electric meter No.9000652745 was installed which was found faulty and therefore the same was replaced within 8 days by replacing the new meter bearing No.874288.  It was contended that though the new electric meter was installed the bills were being issued on the basis of old faulty meter.  It was also contended that all the bills issued to the respondent with remarks like “closed”, “faulty since” & "average" were made and average bill was issued. That, he had approached to the appellant  and requested to issue him bills as per actual reading of new meter.  However without considering his request the bills were issued as per old and faulty meter. It was further contended that he had paid electric bills from time to time during the period from 12.8.1997 to 6.8.2005 to the tune of Rs.11,955/-.  That, the total units consumed by him till the filing of complaint comes to 4700 out of which he has already paid bill of 4361 units and he is ready to pay bill of remaining 331 units.  Accordingly, he had issued the legal notice dated 22.2.2007 to the appellant  which was falsely replied by the appellant on 10.3.2006.  He had therefore approached to the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant that excess bill issued on the basis of faulty meter No.900652745 be cancelled and bills on the basis of new meter bearing No.874288 be issued as per actual reading.  In addition, it was also sought to pay him Rs.40,000/- as compensation  towards mental and physical harassment.

3.       Appellant  appeared before the Forum and denied the claim of the complainant. It was contended that the existing meter was not faulty and it was not changed as alleged by respondent/org.complainant. The allegation that the new meter bearing No.874288 was installed was incorrect.  It was further contended that respondent from 14.9.1998 onwards has paid bill of Rs.7730/- only on 6.8.2005 for reconnecting the supply.   It was also contended that since respondent was in arrears the amount of bill was being accumulated due to addition of interest and penal charges. Hence his complaint being false and baseless be dismissed.

4.       District Forum on the basis of available record and after hearing parties partly allowed the complaint and cancelled the electric bill dated 25.1.2006 and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental and physical harassment.

5.       Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment and order present appeal is filed by MSEDCL in this Commission which was finally heard on 4.3.2013.  Adv.Smt.Smita Medhekar holding for Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale was present for appellant, none was present for respondent.  However respondent had already filed written notes of argument. We heard Adv.Smt.Medhekar for appellant and appeal was reserved for judgment. 

6.       It was contended by learned counsel that the existing meter was working properly and hence there was no need to install new meter. Therefore she submitted that contention of respondent about installation of new meter was completely false and imaginary. There was no documentary evidence to show that meter was changed. She submitted that the electric bills which were issued were as per actual reading. Since the respondent did not deposit the bills regularly the amount of bill went on increasing due to arrears and interest with penal charges on the same.  She therefore contended that these facts though were put forth before District Forum, were not considered and Forum has wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order canceling the said bill dated 25.1.2006. She therefore contended to quash and set aside the judgment and order.  She also contended that dispute regarding correctness of meter reading and all electric bills are to be taken before Electrical Inspector designated and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. In support of her contention she relied on “Biswanath Mukherjee –Vs- West Bengal State Electricity Board, Divisional Engineer & Ors” 2012(1) CPR 76(NC).

7.       On the other hand, respondent vide his written argument made his submission as per his complaint and requested to set aside the bill and contended that the District Forum has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. In support of his contention he relied on following citations.

i)                   Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking –Vs- Y.N.Gupta, III(11993) CPJ 370(NC),

ii)                 Gita Rani Chakraborty –Vs- Station Superintendent, Bankura, WBSEB, I(1997) CPJ 450,

iii)              Chattar Singh –Vs- Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., I(2003) CPJ 392,

iv)               Municipal Corporation of Delhi –Vs- Dhanraj Jain, I(1992) CPJ 262.

8.       We have carefully considered the papers before us and also oral and written arguments as submitted by learned counsels for the appellant  and respondent respectively.  The major question for our consideration and decision are i) Whether the deficiency in service is proved against the appellant?  and ii) whether the judgment and order passed by District Forum needs our intervention.

9.       As regards the first question the main grievance of the  complainant against appellant  is that, though the existing meter was replaced by new meter, electric bills were being issued as per old meter which was faulty.  It is however seen from the CPL which is available for the period of January 2003 onwards till filing of complaint i.e. June 2006.  The alleged new meter bearing number 874288 does not appear to have been installed  but the existing meter number 900652745 is found right from January 2003 to June 2006.  This meter is changed and replaced by new meter bearing No.900210242 in the month of July 2006. Therefore the contention of appellant  that although new meter bearing No.874288 was installed he was being issued electric bills as per old faulty meter, is not acceptable. It is further seen from CPL that remarks as faulty meter is observed only in respect of four months i.e.November 2003, Feb.2004, April 2004 & June 2004 and hence it cannot be concluded that all the bills issued to the respondent were not as per actual reading but on average basis. 

10.     In fact as per said CPL it is further observed that after 14.9.1998 respondent has paid electric bill of Rs.1000/-only in the month of December 2004 and further Rs.7700/- on 6.8.2005.  We have further observed that in the month of January 2003 the amount of outstanding bill against the respondent was Rs.19,631/-.  But since respondent did not pay the same it has further increased to Rs.25,809/- in the month of December 2004 against which respondent has paid only Rs.1000/- and thus arrears of the bills again got accumulated and thus arrears of electric bills in the month of July 2005 has gone up to Rs.28,565/- again which the respondent has paid only Rs.7700/- on 6.8.2005.  Hence by adjusting this amount of Rs.7700/- the bill of balance amount of Rs.22,465/- was issued as on 25.1.2006. It is thus clear that right from January 2003 till January 2006 i.e. for the period of three years, respondent has paid only Rs.8700/-.  Thus for the exorbitant amount of outstanding bill it is only the respondent appears to be responsible as he did not pay the bills regularly.  We are therefore of the view that appellant  cannot be said to have committed deficiency in service by issuing said bills.

11.     The citation as relied on by respondent are not applicable to the present case as facts and circumstances of this case differ from those which exists in the present case. In the case under citation at serial No.1 arrears being claimed without providing bills which is not the case with the present case.  In the case pertained to the citation No.2 & 3 above the average bills were drawn for the period of more than six months in case of defective meters.  The said situation does not exist in the present case. In the case pertaining to citation No.4 demand of arrears was made for the period of more than six months.  However in the present case demand is made continuously, however respondent has failed to pay electric bills regularly which have resulted in the accumulation of arrears, interest etc.

12.     As far as second question is concerned it appears that District Forum has not given proper thought to the above said facts and observations.  The Forum below by its impugned judgment and order has cancelled bill dated 25.1.2006 amounting to Rs.22,465/-. As mentioned above this bill does not pertain only to the month of December 2005 but it is an accumulation of arrears along with interest and penal charges on those arrears right from September 1998 till December 2005.  It is thus clear that Forum below has wrongly concluded that appellant  had committed deficiency in service and has wrongly cancelled the bill by way of impugned judgment and order.  We have therefore no option but to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

In the circumstances, we proceed to pass the following order.

                                                 O   R    D    E     R

1.                 Appeal is allowed.

2.                 The impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3.                 Complaint stands dismissed.

4.                 No order as to cost.

5.                 Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Pronounced on dt.26.03.2013.