Date   : 28.01.2013.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal arose out of order passed by District Forum Aurangabad in C.C.No.288/07 on 4.3.2008, whereby the complaint has been allowed.

2.       Complainant in complaint made allegations in brief that, he had taken electric connection in his house from opponent/appellant.  The meter installed in his house was not working properly. It was changed by opponent after making great persuasion by him.  He was paying bills regularly issued by opponent. The said bills were issued on average basis without being taken actual meter reading. He (complainant ) had made several representations to opponent against the said average meter reading bills. Lastly, he served legal notice to the opponent. There upon opponent issued bill dated 30.7.2007 for exorbitant amount of Rs.16,600/- showing the arrears.  There were no such arrears.  Therefore complainant prayed that the said bill dated 30.7.2007 be cancelled and opponent be directed to issue bills as per meter reading and to pay to him Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment.

3.       Opponent filed written version and denied the liability. It admitted that it issued bills on average basis.  The said bills issued on average basis are adjusted in the month of June 2007 when actual meter reading was available. Complainant consumed monthly 250 units or more. Therefore it submitted that complaint may be dismissed.

4.       District Forum after considering evidence brought on record and hearing advocate of both sides allowed the complaint and thereby cancelled the bill of month June 2007 and directed opponent to issue bill to him on the basis of average consumption during last 12 months. It further directed opponent not to apply interest or penalty on the amount of said bill.

5.       It is submitted by Adv.Smt.Smita Medhekar appearing for the appellant that the average bills were issued from the months of April 2006 to June 2006 as the premises were locked and from months of July 2006 to April 2007 reading was shows as same i.e. 8046 and that in the month of May 2007 meter was actually changed and in the month of June 2007 disputed bill was issued as per consumption. She invited our attention to the copy of Consumer Personal Ledger ( C.P.L.) filed in this appeal. She thus submitted that direction ought to have been given to issue bill as per actual meter reading and not as per consumption average. She therefore submitted that impugned order may be set aside and complaint may be dismissed.

6.       None was present for respondent when appeal was heard on 10.01.2013. After hearing appellant`s advocate, appeal was reserved for order till this date.

7.       We have perused the evidence brought on record. Copy of Consumer Personal Ledger ( C.P.L.) shows the current  meter reading as  8046 in the month of April 2006.  The same reading was continued till month of April 2007. But bills were showing 104  units consumption only during the said period. The CPL also shows reading as ‘locked’ in the months of April 2006, May 2006 & June 2006.  Entries are recorded from July 2006 to April 2007 as meter changed. However actually meter was changed in the month of May 2007 only and current reading is shown as 5 and previous reading is also shown as 5 in the month of May 2007.  Surprisingly in the month of June 2007 though previous reading is shown 5, the current reading is shown as 4768 i.e. consumption of 4763 units in that one month.  In the month of July 2007 the current reading is shown as 5158 and previous reading is shown as 4768 and the consumption shown in the July 2007 as 390 units only.

8.       It is not made clear by the appellant as to how in the month of June 2007 consumption recorded is of 4763 units. No material was placed before District Forum as to how consumption of 4763 units was recorded in the month of June 2007 only.  Thus in the absence of any such material, we hold that District Forum has rightly held that the bill issued in the month of June 2007 showing consumption as 4763 units is not acceptable  as correct.  Therefore District Forum below has rightly cancelled the said bill of month of June 2007.  Moreover the District Forum rightly gave direction to the opponent/appellant to issue fresh bill to the complainant/respondent herein considering the average consumption of last 12 months and not to apply interest and penalty on the amount of said bill. We thus do not agree with the aforesaid submission made by learned advocate of appellant.  There is no merit in the appeal. Hence 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

dated 28.01.2013.