Date  : 16.04.2013

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

1.       Original opponent Nos.1 & 2 have filed this appeal on behalf of MSEDCL challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2008 passed by District Forum Beed in C.C.No.49/2008, whereby the appellants are held liable for the deficient service given to the respondent herein who is the original complainant.

2.       The facts leading to the present appeal are briefed as under.

          That, the respondent had obtained domestic electric connection from the appellant and his consumer number is 573010016053. That he had been paying electric bills regularly.  Last bill paid by him was Rs.1357/- in the month of May 2001. That, inspite of depositing the bills regularly he was suddenly issued excessive bill of Rs.6933/- for the period from May 2001 to August 2001. That, he had approached to the appellant by his application dated 27.9.2001 requesting for correction of said bill.  However no action was taken.  It was contended that on 23.5.2003 his electric supply was disconnected without any notice. He had therefore by his application dated 2.6.2003 requested to the appellant  to issue him correct bills. That, in pursuance of his request he was asked to deposit Rs.5000/- towards alleged arrears of bills.  Accordingly, he paid Rs.5000/- under protest towards alleged arrears and requested restoration of electric supply.  However inspite of depositing of Rs.5000/- neither his bill was corrected nor his supply was restored. It was further contended that he was again issued the bill of Rs.18,125/- for the period from May 2003 to Feb.2007.  After receiving the said bill he again by his application dated 14.9.2007 requested the appellant for issuing correct bills.  That, the appellant has verified the bills and admitted that the arrears of bills were required to be corrected but no action was taken. Therefore he approached to the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant  i.e. original opponent to restore his electric supply forthwith and not to demand him bills for the electricity which he had not consumed. It was also sought direction to the appellant  as not to disconnect electric supply of his house. In addition, it was further sought to pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards illegal and unjustified bills. 

3.       Appellant appeared before the Forum and contested the claim of the respondent/original complainant.  It was contended that bill of Rs.6933/- was for the period of six months after Feb.2001 and therefore it was correctly issued. That, the disputed connection was temporarily disconnected on 23.5.2003 as there was outstanding amount of Rs.8074/- and interest of Rs.349/- at the time of disconnection. It was contended that respondent/complainant had not deposited the amount of electric bills from 23.1.2001 onwards and therefore his electric supply was disconnected on 23.5.2003. That, the said supply was restored on 25.10.2005 on depositing the amount of Rs.5000/- by the respondent.  It was also contended that his bill was corrected and amount of Rs.4140.77 was reduced from his bill and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant.  It was therefore requested to dismiss the complaint. 

4.       District Forum on the basis of record and after hearing parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant  to cancel electric bills for the period from May 2001 to August 2008 and to issue bills as per actual reading of the meter without interest and penal charges for the period from May 2001 to May 2003. It was also directed to appellant  to pay Rs.5000/- as punitive damages to the complainant and Rs.1000/- as cost of complaint within a period of one month.  It was also directed that the amount of punitive damages should be recovered from concern employees of the appellant.  This amount was to be paid within period of one month.  Failing which, interest @ 6% is directed to be paid.

5.       Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment and order present appeal is filed in this Commission by the original opponent. Appeal was taken up for final hearing on 13.3.2013.  Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale was present for appellant whereas Adv.Shri.R.B.Deshpande was present for respondent. We heard both the counsels at length.  Adv.Shri.Deshpande for the respondent also filed written notes of argument.  After hearing of the appellant it was reserved for judgment and order.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant contended that District Forum has not considered properly documentary and oral evidence placed before it.  He submitted that disputed bill was corrected and Rs.2480/- were reduced from his bill.  However he did not pay balance amount of outstanding bills. He also contended that he was not paying bills regularly and therefore bills including arrears were issued to him. Thus the respondent was the defaulter and therefore to avoid to pay amount of bills he filed complaint before the District Forum. However the District Forum without properly appreciating the evidence has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order which be quashed and set aside.

7.       On the other hand, Adv.Shri.Deshpande for the respondent submitted that till May 2001 respondent had paid electric bills regularly.  However in the month of December 2001 appellant had suddenly issued bill of excessive amount showing arrears to pay Rs.6933/-. He contended that though respondent had requested for correction of bill no steps were taken by the appellant and disconnected his supply on 23.5.2003. It was also contended by learned counsel for respondent that even on depositing of Rs.5000/- against outstanding bill on 23.5.2003 his supply was not restored only filing of complaint. He further contended that even the electric supply was disconnected the appellant  continued to issue the bills which is totally injustice to the respondent. He therefore contended that orders passed by District Forum is quite just and proper and same be confirmed. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied on following judgments.

i)                   K.S.E.B. Pattom & Anr. –Vs- Madhavan Pillai, II (2010) CPJ 13, Kerala State Commission.

ii)                 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited –Vs- Srichand Sharma, III(2011) CPJ 103, Uttarakhand State Commission.

iii)              Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. –Vs- Suman Devi, II(2011) CPJ 294. , Rajasthan State Commission.

8.       We have perused the record and considered the oral submission as put forth by both the learned counsels.  From perusal of record it is revealed that respondent had paid last bill of Rs.1357/- in the month of May 2001.  Thereafter bill dated 14.12.2011 amounting to Rs.7330/- has been issued to respondent. In this bill arrears of Rs.6933/- were shown. Since the bill of excessive amount of Rs.7330/- including arrears of Rs.6933/- were shown, the respondent vide his application dated 27.9.2001 had requested the appellant No.1 to issue him the correct bills.  However no explanation or clarification appears to have been given by the appellant regarding said arrears of Rs.6933/-.  It is further observed that the electric supply of respondent was disconnected on 23.5.2003 and it was not restored till filing of the complaint, despite the fact that respondent had paid Rs.5000/- under protest against said outstanding bill on 25.10.2005. It is surprising to note that electric supply was disconnected from 23.5.2003 till date of filing of complaint i.e April 2008.  But the bills were being issued regularly and last bill of Rs.18125/- dated 25.5.2007 was issued to the respondent. In fact during said disconnection there was no consumption of electricity.  At the most appellant  could have issued bill of minimum charges including amount of rent of meter and not the consumption bill. We are therefore convinced that the appellant  have given deficient service by not providing explanation about arrears of Rs.6933/- as are shown under bill dated 14.12.2001 and further during the period of disconnection of electric supply also the appellant  have issued the bills to the respondent.  We therefore find that District Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and by way of its impugned judgment and order has directed to cancel all bills from May 2001 to August 2008, further it has directed to issue bill as per meter reading without charging any penalty from the period from May 2001 to May 2003 for the month in which the electric connection was disconnected. District Forum has also rightly directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of complaint as appellant has provided deficiency in service as explained above.

9.       It is however seen that District Forum has directed appellant to recover the said amount of compensation and cost from the salary of guilty employees of appellant which is not proper under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  As per the provision given U/s 14 of Consumer Protection Act that no such direction can be given. We are therefore of the view to set aside the said clause keeping intact the remaining operative order. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order.

                                                 O   R    D    E     R

1.                 Appeal is partly allowed.

2.                 The Clause No.7 of the operative order directing appellant  to recover amount of compensation  from the salary of the guilty employees is set aside.

3.                 Rest of the order is confirmed.

4.                 No order as to cost  in the appeal.

5.                 Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Pronounced on dt.16.04.2013.