Per Shri D.N.Khamatkar, Hon'ble Member: This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.548/2009 dated 05/12/2009. Facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under: The respondent/complainant had filed a consumer complaint on 26/08/2009 stating therein that the complainant along with her husband had purchased a flat from the Evershine builders. The electric meter was in the name of the builder. The complainant has requested the appellant to transfer the meter in the their name. However, the appellant had not taken any corrective action and given electricity bills in handwritten and insisted to pay the electricity charges and threatened, if the bill is not paid they will disconnect the electricity connection. On 08/04/1999 the complainant received bill of Rs.10,000/-. On inquiry it was always promised that from next month the bill will be given as per actual reading. Till the date of complaint, they have paid nearly Rs.52,000/- towards the electricity charges. All of a sudden on 12/08/2009 the appellant disconnected the electric connection and taken away the meter. Hence, the org.complaiannt/respondent has filed the consumer complaint praying to install the meter in the name of the complainant and start the electric supply and to issue bills as per actual electric consumption and Rs.45,000/- as compensation for mental agony be paid. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after hearing both the parties have passed an order directing that there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant and bill of Rs.56,080/- issued by the appellant is not correct. However, the complainant/respondent should pay Rs.10,000/- and the appellant to accept the same and reconnect the electric supply and should not recover any interest on the bill. Appellant should restore the electric supply within 48 hours, to issue notice to builder and directed to give no objection certificate for new meter. No order as to costs. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed. Ld.Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that complainant/respondent has purchased a flat in the year 1993 from the builder and the electricity meter is in the name of the builder and the complainant is taking electric supply since 1993 and it is a fact that the complainant has not taken any electric connection from the appellant. The appellant has issued the bills for the consumption of electric supply and it is the contention of the appellant that since 1993, the complainant/respondent has not paid any bill. Hence the Counsel has stated that as electric supply is unauthorized and therefore, they have disconnected the electric meter on 12/08/2009. The Counsel further stated that dispute is regarding the payment of arrears and assessment of past bills and the appellant have exclusive jurisdiction as per Electricity Act, 2003 to adjudicate the complaint of the respondent. Ld.Forum has not properly appreciated the Electricity Act, 1910 and 2003 and thereby, arrived at erroneous conclusion. Therefore, Counsel requested that appeal may please be allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum be set aside. The respondent/ complainant had contended that the order passed by the Forum below may please be confirmed and appeal be set aside. Admittedly, the meter used by the complainant/respondent is in the name of Evershine builders. Admittedly, the appellant has discontinued the meter which is in the name of the builder. Once the builder has completed his construction, the appellant should have disconnected the meter. In the instance case, the appellant went on issuing the electricity bills in the name of the builder and insisting the complainant to pay the bills. Under these circumstances, the right course of action should have been closing the meter of the builder and sanction a new connection in the name of the complainant/respondent. Initially, appellant had issued handwritten bills. When the appellant computerized its billing process, why the bills are issued in the handwritten, it is a question. In the bill issued on 26/03/2009, outstanding amount is shown as Rs.56,080/- in the bill. That does not explain how much is the outstanding amount and since when the appellant has unilaterally disconnected the electric supply. It is a harsh action on the part of the appellant. When the appellant noticed that the meter is in the name of the builder, the appellant should have disconnected the meter and should have recovered the arrears from the builders. Without taking such steps the appellant has pressurized the org.complainant/respondents to pay the outstanding bills. This amounts to deficiency in service. As regards the contention of the appellant that they are empowered to recover the outstanding amount form the consumer as per the provisions in the Electricity Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Org.complaiannt/respondent is a consumer and as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he is entitled to know his electricity consumption and the details of the outstanding amount. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not in derogation with the provisions to existing Act but it is an additional remedy available to the aggrieved person. The right course of action for the appellant should have been to workout the outstanding amount of the electric consumption consumed originally by the builder and should have recovered the amount outstanding form the builder and the org.complainant/respondent should have been directed to apply for the fresh electric connection. This shows the uncaring attitude of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal stands rejected. 2. Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane is hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
