Date   : 29.01.2013

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

1.       This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by District Forum Beed in C.C.No.113/2005, whereby the appellant is held liable for deficiency in service. Respondent herein is the original complainant.

2.       It is the case of respondent/org.complainant that it is a temple governed by public trust and it had obtained electric connection from the appellant bearing consumer No.576010269881. It was contended that till the month of August 2003 the bills were being issued as per consumption and they were paid regularly.  However it is after the month of August 2003, the bills were being issued of excessive amount and not as per consumption of electricity. The bill for the period from 20.10.2003 to 19.12.2003 was issued for the excess amount of Rs.25,730/- though remarked as “locked” and last bill for the period 19.4.2005 to 19.6.2005 was issued for the amount of Rs.35,610/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs.34,020/-.  That, since all these bills were issued for the unreasonable and excessive amount had not been paid by respondent.  That, appellants were requested to correct the bills as per the actual consumption. However it`s request was not considered. It was contended that prior to August 2003 bill for two months was being issued for the amount ranging from Rs.1450/- to 3430/-.  The respondent had therefore approached to District Forum seeking direction to cancel all the bills issued after the date of 20.10.2003 and also to pay compensation  of Rs.7,000/-. 

3.       Appellant appeared before the Forum and filed written version whereby the complaint was denied. It was contended that respondent was not regular in payment of electric bills.  That, after the date of 22.10.2003, it was only on 19.10.2005 an amount of Rs.6000/- (part payment) was deposited by the respondent. It was also contended that bills which were issued due to locked status of the house were corrected as per actual consumption in the month of December 2004 and that in June 2005 an interest of Rs.4865.45 ps was also debited from the bill.  It was also contended that amount of Rs.34,020/- pertaining to the bill from October 2003 to December 2004, in which the unit of 1726 pertaining to the old meter and unit of 2068 of the new meter giving actual consumption of 3794 units for the amount of Rs.19,598/- was issued to the respondent.  However since the said amount was not deposited the arrears continued in the next bill and in the month of July bill of Rs.34,020/- was issued. Therefore whatever bills were issued they were as per actual reading and hence there was no any deficiency in service on the part of appellant.  On this ground appellant i.e. original opponent had requested the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

4.       District Forum after going through the record and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the  appellant electrical company to cancel all the bills issued after date of 20.10.2003 and to issue the bills on the basis of average unit. It was also directed to adjust the amount paid by respondent against those bills in future bills. In addition it was also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of the complaint. Order was directed to be complied within period of 30 days.

5.       Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order present appeal is filed in this Commission by the original opponent. Appeal was finally heard on 16.01.2013.  Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale present for appellant whereas Adv.Shri.Ujwal Patil was present for respondent.  We have heard both the counsels at length and appeal was reserved for judgment and order.

6.       Learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale appearing for appellant submitted that in the month of October 2003 meter was changed and considering the correct reading of the meter of 2070 units and previous reading as 2 units the actual consumption came to 2068 units and considering previous unit of 1726 the total unit consumed came to the tune of 3794 units.  Therefore bill for said month was issued for the amount of Rs.19598.93.  He further contended that interest of Rs.4865/- was also further deducted from the amount of bill and therefore whatever bills were issued to the respondent, were as per actual reading and there was nothing excess as alleged by respondent.  It was contended by him that complaint regarding correctness of electric meter or bills requires to be made to the concern Electrical Inspector and therefore Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint about the quantum of bills. Since the District Forum has not appreciated the defense taken by the appellant, the judgment and order requires to be set aside. In support of his said contention he relied on the citation in case of “Biswananth Mukherjee –Vs- West Bengal State Electricity Board, Divisional Engineer & Ors” 2012(1) CPR 76(NC).

7.       On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.Ujwal Patil for respondent submitted that there was no basis for issuing the bills for excessive amount. He contended that bills after 20.10.2003 have been issued without taking the reading and hence they were based on wrong reading. He further submitted that prior to 20.10.2003 bi-monthly bills were being issued and they were only in the range of Rs.1450 to 3430/- as pointed out in the complaint. He therefore contended that bills issued after date 20.10.2003 being faulty and illegal have rightly been cancelled by the District Forum. He further submitted that the point of jurisdiction was not raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before the District Forum. Hence the same cannot be raised before Appellate Forum.

8.       We have carefully gone through record as well as oral submissions advanced by learned counsels of both the respective parties. We have also gone through the CPL as submitted by the appellant.  It is observed that prior to October 2003 the unit consumed are in the range of 100 to 1058, but it is only in the month of October 2003 the unit of 3794 have been shown as consumed by the respondent.  We have also observed that for the month of October 2003 the current reading is shown as only 2 units. However the last months current reading is shown as 1960.  In fact, the current reading of the last month becomes previous reading of the current month.  Therefore the current reading of 1960 for the month of August 2003 should have been previous reading for the month of October 2003 but it is shown only 2 instead of 1960 for which we find no basis.  Therefore the consumed unit for the month of October 2003 as worked out to 2068 in which appellant have added unit of 1726 under the head of adjusted units and given the bill of Rs.19598.93 for the total units of 3794, does not appear to be correct and justified. There are also no details regarding adjusted unit of 1726.  We further  find that bill issued for the month of October 2003 onwards till the date of filing of complaint are also not based on actual consumption of the units.  We are therefore of the view that District Forum has rightly directed to cancel these bills.

9.       The citations as relied on by learned counsel for appellant does not appear to be applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstances of the same are different. In the case  under citation there is an alleged tampering of the meter which is not involved in the present case.

10.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the bills for the period in question requires to be issued on average basis as directed by the District Forum also. However, the order of the Forum is silent on the point as to how much average units are to be fixed.  We find that there is no dispute of the respondent regarding unit consumed till August 2003.  As per the CPL , the units consumed for the last five bills i.e. from December 2002 to August 2003 the average bi-monthly units comes to 479.4 units, say 480 units. We are therefore of the considered view to direct the appellant to issue the bills on the basis of average unit of 480 for billing period of two months as is available in the CPL for the period from October 2003 till the date of filing of complaint i.e. 4.10.2005.  We are therefore inclined to modify the order passed by District Forum only to the extent of clarifying the average unit to be considered for charging the bill. Hence, the order.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is dismissed. 

2.     The Clause No.2 of impugned order passed by District Forum is modified by way of clarification as under.

Appellant is directed to cancel all the bills issued from 20.10.2003 till the date of filing of complaint and to issue bills on the basis of average unit of 480 considering  bi-monthly period and to adjust the amount of bills paid by the respondent in the future bills.

3.     Directions given by District Forum to the appellant for the payment of Rs.500/- to the respondent towards cost of the complaint and also period of 30 days for taking above said action are confirmed.

4.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

Pronounced on 29.01.2007.