Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.107/1998.
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Opponent had provided two electric meters i.e. Meter No.E-907677 and E-907700. The Meter No.E-907677 was for residential premises and meter no.E-907700 was for the shop premises. It is alleged by the Complainant/Respondent that the Opponent raised the electricity bills for both the meters on the basis of use of the meter for commercial purpose. The Complainant requested the Opponent to rectify the bill. However, the Opponent failed to rectify the same. It is further alleged that the Inspector of the Opponent inspected the meter in February/March, 1997 and on 21.10.1997 found that the said meter No.E-907677 was being exclusively used for residential purposes. Further it is alleged that the Opponent had sent amended bill of `42,189.43 for the period from 04.06.1993 to 22.06.1996. The Complainant protested the said demand notice. The Complainant further alleged that in spite of protest the Opponent removed both the meters and thereby disconnected the electricity of his shop as well as of his residence. Therefore, the Complainant had filed consumer complaint with following prayers:
(i) To direct the Opposite Party to install the electric meters No.E-902375 and E-907677 at its usual place and restore the electric supply to the applicant’s premises.
(ii) To direct the Opposite Party to convert at least one electric meter NO.E-907677 from commercial use to residential use and collect the charges of the electricity consumer accordingly.
(iii) To award the compensation for causing mental agony on account of disconnection of the electric supply.
(iv) To declare that the demand for amount of `42,189.43 as per the bill dt. February 1998 for the period 4.6.93 to 22.6.96 is null void and not binding upon the applicant and that the same be set aside and quashed.
(v) To direct the Opposite Party to restore the electric supply to the premises by installing the meter immediately during the pendency of the complaint, cost etc.
(3) The Opponent resisted the complaint and contended that they have provided two meters and both the meters were used for the commercial purposes. They further contended that when they inspected the meters it was noticed that they found the meters sticking and were not recording correct electric consumption. Accordingly they replaced the meter by providing Meter No.E-902375 from 22.06.1996 and after taking into consideration the connected load they had issued the revised bill amounting to `42,189.43. As the Complainant failed to pay the bill the supply was disconnected. Therefore, the Opponent requested that the complaint be dismissed.
(4) The District Forum after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence adduced by both the parties allowed the complaint directing the Opponent to install two electric meters without recovering restoration charges. One of the meters shall be installed for the purpose of residential use and other for the commercial use and Opponent to raise bills as per the tariffs applicable to each meter. The Opponent further directed to refer the dispute in respect of Meter No.E-902375 to the Review Committee and the dispute in respect of Meter No.E-907677 to the Electrical Inspector. The Review Committee and the Electricity Inspector both were directed to decide the dispute upon hearing the Complainant as well as the Opponent and pass the orders in accordance with law. The Opponent not to demand all the disputed bills or take any action till the expiry period of one month from the date of communication of the order by the Review Committee as well as the Electricity Inspector to the Complainant. It is against this order the present appeal is filed.
(5) The matter was on sine die list. On 2nd August, 2011 the matter was placed before us. We had directed to issue intimation to both the parties. However on the date of hearing both the parties remained absent. As the matter is old one, we proceeded to decide the matter on merit.
(6) Admittedly, the Opponent has provided Electric Meter No.E-907677 for the residential premises and the Meter No.E-907700 for the shop premises. It is the contention of the Complainant/Respondent that the Opponent charged the electric consumption on the basis of commercial rates. Even though the Complainant objected to this, the Opponents had not taken any action. In the month of February, the Opponent had served the amended bill of `42,189.43 to the original Complainant/Respondent. It is the contention of the Appellant that they had replaced the Meter No.E-907700 as they found that it was not recording proper electric consumption. Hence, they provided the new meter on 22.06.1996. After taking into consideration the connected load of the meter they had issued the revised bill of `42,189.43 and as the Complainant/Respondent had not paid the revised demand bill they had disconnected the electric supply.
(7) The District Forum after hearing both the parties and going through the evidence adduced by both the parties only referred the matter to the Electrical Inspector and the Review Committee to enquire into the grievances of both the parties and the finding of the Review Committee and the Electrical Inspector will be binding to both the parties and as such there is no order against the Opponent.
(8) After going through the order passed by the District Forum, we find that the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and there is no substance in the appeal filed by the Appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Order of the District Forum dated 14.10.2003 is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 22nd September, 2011.
