(Delivered on 09/06/2016)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) against the order dated 17/06/2004, passed in consumer complaint No. 90/2003, by the  District Forum, Bhandara , by which complaint has been partly allowed.

2.         The facts in brief  giving rise  to the present  appeal are as under,

The original complainant who is the  respondent herein  obtained electric connection  to his residential  house from the O.P.. The O.P. issued electric  bills from  01/07/2002 to 13/01/2003 showing consumption of 417 units, then from 13/01/2003 to 13/04/2003 showing consumption  of 298 units and from 13/04/2003 to 13/07/2003 showing consumptions of 313 units. It is alleged  by the complainant that  as he got only two bulbs  in his house  of 40 watt  each his consumption  of electricity is very low and  excessive  consumption  is shown in the said  bils  by the O.P. He therefore, issued notice dated 13/05/2003  to the O.P. for correction of bill but the O.P. sent the reply and failed to comply with notice.  The earlier meter was faulty and therefore  subsequently  meter was installed  by which  the  incorrect bills have been issued. Therefore, the  complainant filed  consumer complaint  and  prayed that  direction  be given to the O.P. to  restore his   electric supply which has been disconnected due to  non payment  of aforesaid  bills and to replace the  meter which is installed  on 07/08/2002 and to  issue revised bill showing  consumption  of 75 units  for each  three months  from 01/07/2002 to 13/01/2003, 13/01/2003 to 13/04/2003  and 13/04/2003 to 13/07/2003  by cancelling  earlier  three bills dated 31/01/2003, 16/04/2003 and 11/07/2003  and to pay compensation 10,000/-  and cost of complaint  amounting to Rs. 500/-.

 3.        The  O.P. resisted that  complaint by filing  its written version. It is admitted by the O.P. that  previous meter was faulty  and therefore average bills were issued  to the complainant. The said  faulty meter was replaced  on 22/07/2002. The disputed bills have been issued  on the basis of the correct meter reading  of new meter showing consumption  of 1172 units  from October 2002 to October 2003 and complainant  is duty bound  to pay the same. It is denied that  the bills  issued are incorrect. Therefore, O.P. prayed that  complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4.         The District  Forum  after hearing both the parties  and considering evidence  brought  on record  passed the  impugned order and thereby partly allowed the  complaint.  The Forum  observed in the impugned order in brief that the  new meter reading  shows the consumption  of more than 300 units  for  each period of  three months. The complainant  has  used two bulbs of  40 watt power each  and therefore the Forum came to the conclusion  that the meter is moving  fast and therefore  it is required to be replaced by the O.P. on its own  cost.  The Forum  also observed in the impugned order  that the  O.P. has  incorrectly charged  TDL  from October 2002 to October 2003 and also  charged interest  over the  arrears  and  that the documents filed on record do not show the correct consumption of  the electricity. Therefore,  the Forum held that  the  consumption of electricity  cannot be more than 100 units for each three months. Thus the Forum directed the O.P.  in the impugned order to replace  the meter of the complainant  without any charge for the same.. The Forum cancelled  all the bills for the period  from  01/07/2002 to 13/07/2003 and directed  the O.P. to issue  revised bills for the said period  showing consumption  of 100 units  for each   period of three months  and to divide  amount of  those   bills in  four  installments  and  after payment of first installment,  electric  supply of the  complainant  be restored within  eight days and to  adjust the amount  paid by the  complainant  in  revised bill and to recover the restoration  charges from  the complainant  and to pay him cost of Rs. 500/-.

5.         Feeling aggrieved by that order, the original O.P. has filed  this  appeal. The complainant /respondent herein  failed to appear though duly served by notice dated 14/09/2015  issued by this Commission  to him on 15/09/2015 and acknowledgement  is received  singed by the respondent   about service of  that notice. As the respondent  failed to appear, appeal is proceeded  exparte against him.   The learned advocate of the appellant has drawn our attention to the copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger  (CPL) in support of his submission  that  the new meter was installed  in the month of July-2002 and as per reading of  the said new meter the  bills  were issued  for period of  each three months to the complainant.  He also invited our attention to the disputed bills along with the calculation sheet filed with the disputed  bill recording consumption claimed in the bill.  He submitted that the Forum has not properly considered the aforesaid CPL and other documents filed on record. He further submitted that all the bills issued on actual basis of the meter reading and has not proved by the complainant the said meter was faulty. The Forum erred in cancellation of all those bills and directing to issue revised bills and restoration of electric supply.  He further submitted that there is no base for holding that the consumption of the complainant was only 100 units for period of  each three months. He therefore, requested that as the impugned order is illegal, it may be set aside and complaint may be dismissed.

6.         After going  through the copy of  CPL, we find substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the appellant.  There is no evidence to show that new meter installed by the O.P. was defective and not recording  correct reading of consumption.  The copy of the CPL produced on record  shows consumption of 471 units  for three months period  in  month of January-2003. However, the said  consumption  was corrected in the month of April-2003 and on the basis  of actual meter reading the consumption was shown in April-2003 as  298 units. Thereafter in the month of  July-2003 the consumption shown   was 313 units and then October-2003 the consumption  of  346 units was shown. In our view as it is not  proved that  the meter was  faulty  and running  fast, the  aforesaid consumptions recorded  in CPL on the basis of meter reading needs to be accepted as correct. The disputed bills are issued  on the said actual consumption of electricity.  In our view the Forum  erred in holding that  the consumption  of the complainant  was not more than 100 units  for  period of each  three months. There is no basis for taking the said view. Moreover, we also hold that  the Forum erred in directing  the O.P. to cancel the disputed  bills  and to issue revised bill showing consumption  of 100 units for  period of each three months . Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is allowed.

ii.          The impugned order is set aside.  Complaint stands  dismissed

iii.         No order as to cost in appeal.

iv.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.