Date  : 06.12.2012.

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

1.       The M.S.E.D.C.Ltd. has filed this appeal which was the original opponent challenging the judgment and order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the Dist.Forum Ahmednagar in C.C.No.23/07.  Present respondent is the original complainant.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint of complainant are that he is a farmer and had obtained electric connection before 24 years from the appellant. His consumer number is 16410010342 and meter number is 9005002390.  That, he was being issued bills for every three months and he had regularly paid the bills till 7.6.2006. However, all of a sudden the appellant issued bill dated 17.9.2006 for exorbitant amount of Rs.4930/-. Immediately he made complaint to the appellant`s office regarding the said bill.  However no cognizance of his complaint was taken by the appellant.  He therefore made complaint  to the appellant on 28.10.2006.  However instead of reducing the amount of said bill the appellant issued bill dated 6.12.2006 for further exorbitant amount of Rs.16,700/-.  He again made written complaint against the said bill to the appellant vide his application dated 27.12.2006.  However, without taking action on his application his electric connection was disconnected by the appellant on 29.12.2006.  Thus alleging that appellant has committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice filed consumer complaint before Dist.Forum seeking direction to the appellant to restore his electric connection as disconnected on 29.12.2006 and not to disconnect the same in future and for reissuing the proper bill after deducting there from the amount paid by him.  It was also sought direction to the appellant to cancel the disputed bills which are unreasonable and of exorbitant amount and also to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of complaint.

3.       Present appellant appeared before the Forum and contested the claim.  It was contended by the appellant that electric bill was issued on average basis as the electric meter of respondent/org.complainant was faulty since May 2000.  It was also contended that if meter is found faulty, the appellant has right to charge the bill on average basis and accordingly the bill dated 17.9.2006 was issued by considering the average consumption of 12 months and the same was properly issued. Since the said bill was not paid by respondent the amount of arrears was accumulated and hence the bill dated 6.12.2006 was issued for Rs.16,700/- including the arrears and cost.  It was therefore contended that bills issued are as per the actual consumption and hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of appellant and hence complaint being baseless be dismissed.

4.       Dist.Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties has allowed the complaint and cancelled the bill dated 6.12.2006. It was further directed to the appellant to pay to the complainant Rs.3000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum present appeal is filed by MSEDCL in this Commission.

6.       Appeal was finally heard on 17.10.2012.  Adv.Smt.Smita Medhekar was present for appellant, none was present for respondent although on earlier dated Adv.V.D.Patil was present for respondent. 

7.       Adv.Smt.Medhekar for the appellant submitted that there being the special court established under Electricity Act 2003 to decide the liability, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further contended that it was also the duty of the consumer to inform the MSEDCL regarding faulty status of the meter. It was also her contention that bill dated 7.9.2006 & 6.12.2006 were issued as per the reading available on meter and as per the finding given by Dist.Forum respondent was in arrears from 31.5.2006.   She  further contended that there was no negligence on the part of appellant but Dist.Forum without considering these aspects has wrongly held the appellant as liable by way of it`s impugned judgment and order which be quashed and set aside.

8.       We have perused the papers as well as have taken into consideration the oral submissions put forth by the learned counsel for appellant.  It is apparent that the main grievance of respondent/complainant is about the bills dated 7.9.2006 for Rs.4930/- and dated 7.12.2006 for Rs.16,700/-.  Respondent is a consumer of appellant for the last 25 years and that the electric bills up to 7.6.2006 have been regularly paid by him which has not been disputed by the appellant.  As observed by Dist.Forum consumption reading of respondent from Feb.2002 onwards was 330 units for the billing of three months and from August 2005 onwards said reading is 395 units. But suddenly the bill dated 7.9.2006 showed the reading at 1305 units for the amount of Rs.4930/-.  Whereas next bill dated 6.12.2006 showed consumption unit at 2470 with the amount of bill at Rs.16,700/-.  The explanation given by the appellant as per his written version is that the meter of respondent was faulty since May 2000 till 7.6.2006. He was being given bill on the average basis.  Therefore bill dated 7.9.2006 for Rs.4930/- was issued considering consumption of last 12 months. It is also the contention of appellant that since this bill was not paid by the respondent the next bill of Rs.16,700/- was given including arrears.

9.       It is surprising to note that the appellant on the one side has admitted that meter was faulty for the period of 2000 to 2006.  It means unit of consumption recorded in respect of both the disputed bills are on the basis of faulty meter.  There is no case of appellant that said faulty meter was changed before issuing these two bills. Both these bills therefore cannot be said on the basis of actual consumption of electricity and hence respondent is not bound to pay the same as rightly held by Dist.Forum.

10.     It is well settled principle that it is the responsibility of MSEDCL to keep meter under proper working condition which is in the interest of MSEDCL itself and also in the interest of consumer. However in the instant case there is a gross failure on the part of appellant as the said fault was not repaired for the period of 6 years.  Thus the failure to repair the meter for such a long period and also the action of disconnection of electric supply on 29.12.2007 for non-payment of such faulty bill dated 6.12.2006 given on the basis of faulty meter amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we do not find any material in the present appeal. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum. In the result we pass the following order.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is dismissed. 

2.     No order as to cost.

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

Pronounced on 06.12.2012.