Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/318

MP MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. THROUGH DGM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. PUSHPA DONGRE - Opp.Party(s)

DR SAPNA AGGARWAL

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 06.10.2022 passed in C.C.No.144/2013 by District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

M.P.MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT

VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED,

THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

CITY DIVISION-WEST, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                         … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

SMT. PUSHPA DONGRE,

W/O LATE SHRI N. S. DONGRE,

R/O FLAT NO. F-2, SRG YUGANTAR COLONY,

BARKHEDA PATHANI, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                      ...   RESPONDENT.  

                    

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                        :     PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Rajeev Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  23.11.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                   The opposite party/appellant-M. P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘electricity company’) has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.144/2013 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he is having domestic electricity connection no.32425214339441 of which he was paying bills regularly. It is alleged by the complainant that all of sudden in the month of November-2012 a bill showing consumption of 5248 units, the electricity company raised a bill for Rs.39,630/-, which was challenged by him but no action was taken by the electricity company. Despite repeated requests, the electricity company did not correct the said bill and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking abashment of disputed bill with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  

3.                The electricity company resisting the complaint took the defence that since the complainant was having sanctioned load of 2000 watt and in that case, the meter reading ought to have come 200 to 250 unit instead of 43 to 45 units per month. The complainant in collusion with meter reader recorded less reading per month and in this way he tried to harm the electricity company. At the request of complainant himself the meter was tested in LTMT Lab and the meter was found slow. The complainant despite notice did not appear in the Lab at the time of meter testing. On the basis of consolidated meter reading bill was raised which is just and proper. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the electricity company. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

-3-

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint quashed the disputed bill for the month of November-2012 for Rs.39,630/-. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded. It is also directed that the aforesaid amount be paid within two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment. Hence this appeal by the electricity company.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant-electricity company argued that the District Commission has gravely erred in quashing the bill as was raised on the basis of consolidated meter reading. The District Commission ignored the ill intention of respondent that he in collusion with the meter reader showed less meter reading. He argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is against the facts and evidence available on record. He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent supporting the impugned order argued that the electricity company did not serve any notice with regard to testing of meter. Also if there was fault on part of their meter reader, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. The electricity company

 

-4-

has also not placed on record that what action was taken against the faulty meter reader.

8.                On perusal of the record, we find that the electricity company in its reply has submitted that at the request of the complainant, the meter got tested in LTMT Laboratory of which notice was given to the complainant on 29.12.2012 which he refused to accept. We have perused the said letter dated 29.12.2012 (Annexed as NA-1).  At the end of the said letter it has been written ‘Refused to accept’. The electricity company has not disclosed this fact that whose signatures were there and to whom the complainant refused to accept the notice. Also the electricity company did not file any affidavit of the person who has gone to serve the aforesaid notice. When the complainant himself made a prayer for testing the meter, why should he refuse to accept the notice for the same. On the other hand the complainant has stated that no notice was given to him to remain present at the time of testing the meter in the laboratory. The electricity company without giving any opportunity to the complainant on its own tested the meter in the laboratory. This clearly goes to show ill intention of the electricity company.

9.                It is also pertinent to mention here, the electricity company failed to prove its defense by way of any documentary evidence that the complainant in collusion with the meter reader got recorded less meter reading and in this way tried to harm the electricity company financially by

-5-

paying less amount. The District Commission has rightly observed that in the electronic meters, there is no possibility of tampering with the meter. It is also not allegation of the electricity company the meter was found tampered. All of sudden in the month of November-2012 the electricity company raised bill for a sum of Rs.39,630/- of which no bill details were given by the electricity company neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission. Thus we find that the District Commission has rightly found the electricity company deficient in service in raising huge bill of Rs.39,630/- and has rightly quashed the said bill.  

10.              In view of the above discussion, we are of a considered view that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint by quashing the bill in question. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly it is affirmed.

11.              In the result, this appeal deserves and is hereby dismissed as time barred as also on merits.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member