(Delivered on 12/08/2016) Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member. 1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Bhandara in CC No. 155/2002 dated 26/02/2003 partly granting the complaint and directing the opposite party (O.P. for short) to reconnect the electric supply disconnected on 05/07/2002 and repair the faulty meter of the complainant free of cost or replace it. Also cancel both the bills of electricity of Rs. 1,74,510/- and Rs. 69,721/- given to the complainant and provide him the bill for August 1991 to Sept. 2001 and till repair of faulty meter, at the rate of 250 average units . If the complainant has deposited any amount it be appropriated in the bill and the remaining amount be collected in 10 installments. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 to provide to Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost for physical and mental harassment to the complainant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint against the Opposite party Nos. 1&2 (for short O.P.) offices of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (now Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.) that the complainant has a domestic electric connection and paid regular bill till the year 1999. However, the meter stopped at a reading of 3068 which was informed by him to the O.Ps. However, the O.Ps. gave a bill on average meterage till Dec. 2001,to him which he paid till 25/01/2002. He also made request informing about the faulty meter on 29/01/2002 when the O.P. Nos. 1&2 fitted new meter on 07/03/2002. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 did not make a panchanama of old meter and did not record the reading. The O.Ps. did not send it to the Electric Inspector for a repairs and evaluation. However, the O.P. Nos. 1&2 on 29/04/2002 suddenly gave a bill of Rs. 1,74,510/- for the period from 07/12/2001 to 07/03/2002 showing the consumption of electricity of 1237 units The complainant stated that the meter is at the same place where it was set up and has not been shifted to a place to make difficult to read as is alleged by the O.P. He then made a request to reconsider the bill. He was told that the bill would not be reduced and was threatened to snap the electrical connection. The complainant therefore getting panicky filed a complaint with a request to cancel the bill of Rs. 1,74,610/- and permit him to pay the bill at average meter reading. Direct the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 not to press for the bill and interest upon it. Allow the complainant to pay the regular bill regularly and direct the O.P. Nos. 1&2 to provide him a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as a cost of complaint. 3. On notice the O.P. Nos. 1&2 appeared and with written version submitted that the complainant had six blocks and has a heavy use of electricity. He had deposited the electricity bill till the year 1999. But after that his meter reading could not be available to the company of the O.P. from August 1991 till Sep. 2001 for 122 months when he was given a bill at the average usage only. When the reading was available in Dec. 2001. it was found that the complainant had used much more units than the actual bill of 4795 units and therefore, he was given a well calculated bill of Rs. 69,766.60 for 28624 units. The readings could not be collected as there was blackening of the view glass of meter and the meter was placed at a place where reading of meter was not possible. He was given the original bill of Rs. 1,74,600/- which was reduced to Rs. 69,966.60. As it is a bill of used electricity, the complaint be dismissed and the complainant be directed to pay the bill amount. 4. The learned Forum heard both the parties, perused the CPL extract (Consumer Personal Ledger) and holding that the O.P. did not file the affidavit of the line man and did not record the readings which indicated that the meter must be faulty, and therefore, granting the complaint passed the order as above. 5. Aggrieved against the order, the O.P. Nos. 1&2 have filed the appeal together hence, are called as appellants. Advocate Smt. Deo appeared on behalf of the appellants. The original complainant remained absent after service of notice, and hence, was proceeded exparte. The appellant filed written notes of argument. 6. The advocate for the appellants reiterated same grounds as were raised before the learned Forum and submitted that the readings of the respondent could not be taken because of difficult placement of the meter and blackening of the view glass of the meter. The meter was appropriately running but as the reading was not available the average bill was given to him. After the receipt of the complaint for faulty meter from the respondent the meter was checked on 27/02/2002 and the reading was found at 37822 with heavy consumption of electricity based on connected load. On that day the statement of the respondent was recorded and bears his signature. He was therefore given the bill for actual consumption and he accepted it. However filed a complaint. The learned Forum failed to appreciate the CPL and also the Route Reading Report for Sept. 1999 to March-2002 wherein proper entries are made as to why the reading could not be acquired. Also the statement of the line man who restarted the meter is filed which is not considered by the learned Forum. The appellant also re-corrected the bill and hence, the learned Forum erred in passing the order. 7. We considered the contentions of the appellants advocate. We find that the meter was checked on 27/02/2002 and entries are made of the reading with load attached to it and are signed by the respondent. We also see that the appellants have given a letter to the respondent about the use and re-correcting the arrears of the bill of Rs.69,966.60 till June-2002. The CPL also shows the use of electricity to the recording of 37,571 units till March -2002. It shows that the respondent used the electricity as per the meter but could not be given the correct bill month wise because of the difficult placement of the meter which can be seen from the rout reading report filed by the appellant. 8. We therefore, find that there does not appear any evidence to presume that the meter was faulty except that the readings were not properly recorded because of the blackening of the view glass. It is therefore incumbent upon the respondent to pay the arrears as are properly calculated by the appellants as per the electricity used by the respondent. We find that the learned Forum did not appreciate the report dated 27/02/2002 and came to a wrong conclusion which needs to be corrected. We are therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the learned Forum. However, direct that the appellants would not charge any interest on the demand of bill given on 06/07/2002 of Rs. 69,966.60 and recover it with adjustment of already paid amount, in 12 installments. We find no reason to provide cost to the appellant and hence, pass the order as below. ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The impugned order is set aside. iii. Appellants to issue the proposed bill in 12 installments without charging interest or surcharge. iv. Parties to bear their own costs. v. Copy of order be given to both the parties free of cost. | 
