| Final Order / Judgement | (Delivered on 28/09/2016) Per Mr. S. B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member - The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Akola, passed in CC No. 313/2008, dated 31/03/2009 granting the complaint and directing the opposite party ( for short OP) to provide correct electricity consumption bill to the complainant systematically. Also provided a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for physical and mental harassment with the cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid till 31/05/2009 and to file compliance report on 15/6/2009 in case of failure, the OP shall be responsible for action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to pay interest on the amount decreed at the rate of 12 percent per annum which be noted by the respondent. Further directed the Chief Engineer of the OP of Amravati region to conduct proper enquiry in respect of complaint and assess the loss incurred by the company of the OP and to get it compensated from the defaulting officers, workers and contractors and after taking appropriate preventive action shall file action taken report before the learned Forum by 15/8/2009 without fail. The copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Engineer Amravati region immediately.
- In brief, the complainant filed a complaint that he was given the bill of March 2008 of Rs. 130/- on 10/04/2008 in which the previous reading was shown to be 2288 and the last reading was remark as R empty with no photograph. Similar bill was given for April 2008 and a similar bill was given for May 2008 where the previous reading was shown as 2288 and present reading was shown as 2423 with consumption of 135 units. The complainant submitted that likewise he was given the bills up to October 2008 by not taking the readings and showing the photograph. Thus, OP provided him the irregular bills of average consumption. The opposite party ( In short OP) Chief Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company ( MSEDCL ) caused mental harassment as his complaints were not attended and he was required to repeatedly come to Akola from his place of residence. He therefore gave a notice to the OP on 28/11/2008 which was received by it on 2/12/2008. However the OP did not reply it. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint with a request to provide him Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and to give him the bills from March 2008 to October 2008 by properly correcting them and to provide cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
- On notice, the OP appeared and countered the complaint on the ground that during February 2008 to April 2008, the meter photographs were not properly coming as well the complainants house was closed. He was given the bills based on average consumption available. When the meter reading was available, he was given the correct bill by appropriating the previously paid amount. Similarly for the bills of June and August 2008, the house of the complainant was locked. He was therefore given bills on average consumption and when the readings were available in Sept 2008, he was given the correct bill by appropriating the previous payment. The complainant gave a notice which was replied in detail on 24/12/2008. However the complainant filed the complaint with the intention to claim the compensation. Hence the complaint may kindly be dismissed as there is no substance in it.
- The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that the OP did not file affidavit of the person taking the meter reading to prove that the house was closed when he went there to record meter reading. As per the electric supply rules and regulations 2005, rule No. 15.3, the OP can only give the bills on average consumption for one or two months only. But it cannot continue to give the bills on average consumption for a longer period. The learned Forum however found that the OP had properly calculated the consumption by providing appropriation for the amount paid previously. Therefore the learned Forum held that the OP by not providing the correct bill caused mental harassment to the complainant,. Thus, pass the order as above.
- Aggrieved against the order, the OP filed an appeal. Advocate Mr. Quazi represented the OP, which is called as appellant. Advocate Mr. Bhangde appeared on behalf of original complainant who is referred as respondent. Both parties filed written notes of arguments.
- The advocate for the appellant reiterated the same facts as were pleaded before the learned Forum and submitted that in 2008, the scheme of photograph was introduced. However the workers could not take proper photographs. Hence the photograph could not be properly printed. At the same time, the house of the respondent was also locked at the time of taking readings and hence he was given the bills at average consumption. When the readings were available, he was given proper bills by appropriate subtraction. The learned Forum also found that no extra bill for consumption was recovered from the respondent. The respondent’s notice was given detail reply. The advocate for the appellant therefore submitted that when no deficiency was caused, there was no reason for the learned Forum to levy compensation and cost upon the appellant. Hence order to pay compensation needs to be set aside in the absence of deficiency.
- The advocate for the respondent reiterated allegations of respondent and submitted that there is deficiency in service on behalf of appellant. Hence the learned Forum pass the order correctly which needs to be maintained.
- We find that the learned Forum, considered the bills of consumption and found no collection of extra amount than the due, but awarded the compensation only for giving of average consumption bill. We find that whenever a new scheme of change in procedure is introduced some hiccups problems develop. When such issues have not caused any expenditure to the respondent, we do not find any reason to provide the compensation and the cost from appellant to the complainant/respondent. We find therefore that the learned Forum erred in providing a compensation when the appellant was trying to introduce a new system. Also the respondent was equally under obligation to keep his house always open and to make available the meter for taking readings. Hence when the house was locked, respondent does not deserve to get the compensation for average billing. We also find that there cannot be any reason for the Chief Engineer, Amravati region to conduct an enquiry and act against the employees. We therefore find the order of the learned Forum to be erroneous, justifying its quashing. Hence we proceed to set it aside and pass the order as below.
ORDER - The appeal is allowed.
- The order of the Forum is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed.
- Parties to bear their own cost.
- Copy of the order be sent to both the parties, free of cost.
| |
