Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

Mr.Surajpal Rampal Yadav/respondent no.1(complainant) though served, absent.  We heard Adv.Mr.Kailash Patil for respondent no.2.   

This case is taken into suo-motu revision because Mr.Kailash Patil, who is advocate for MSEB made a grievance that the interim order below Exhibit-5 was passed on 23/01/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon behind and back of Adv.K.Patil.  He makes a statement that the complaint was filed by the respondent/ Surajpal on 22/01/2009 and the notice was issued by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalgaon and in view of the notice, Adv.Mr.K.Patil for MSEB appeared in the complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 23/01/2009. It appears that since there was a stay application, immediate notice was served and in view of the said notice the opponent/MSEB appeared in the said case.  From the order sheet, we find that on that day the complainant and opponent, represented, Adv. Kailash Patil were present, Adv.Patil has filed vakalatnama and filed an application seeking time to give say on stay application  and reply version of complainant. Said application was granted and the date was given i.e. 28/01/2009.  From the original case papers, we find that there is an application at Exhibit-5 in respect of interim relief.  On the said application on 22/01/2009, the President and Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgoan have passed an order issuing notice to the opponent and on 23/01/2009 there is an order passed directing to maintain the status-quo in respect of electric connection.

        The grievance of Adv.K.Patil is, after time was granted to him to file reply version, he left the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and thereafter, this order has order has been passed.  No doubt there is discrepancy in the roznama and the present order, namely, roznama  dated 23/01/2009 does not make mention to this order being passed.  However, on record the order is in existence.

        Firstly, we do not find substance in the contention that the order has been passed behind and back because several references has been made in the order that the application for filing the say has been filed, vakalatnama has been filed as stated in the order.  That shows that particular application was filed and order is passed in the presence of the parties.  There is nothing on record to show that the order has been passed behind and back of Adv.Mr.K.Patil.  Non-mention of the order in roznama does not lead to an inference that order is passed in his absence.  It may be an inadvertent slip.

        This matter requires greater consideration and it is an example how the consumers are being harassed by MSEB.  From the complaint which is filed on record, we find that earlier the respondent/complainant has filed complaint no.268/2006.  Said complaint was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon on 31/01/2007.  In the earlier complaint the period of dispute and electricity consumption was from 30/11/2004 to 31/01/2007.  Ultimately, after hearing the parties, it was directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon that bills in respect of this period shall be prepared by the respondent-company.  It was further directed that they shall divide it into equal installment and thereafter, rectified bills may be issued to the complainant.  It was further directed that while giving corrected bills interest, DPC charges and interest over interest shall not be charged etc.  In view of the fact that this was not complied with, the complainant has filed an application bearing no.57/2007 under Section 27 and show cause notice was also issued to the respondent-company.  Even warrant was also executed as against the respondent-company.  When these proceedings were going on, the respondent-company has issued a noticed dated 12/01/2009 making statement of electricity consumption bill along with arrears and interest and calculated the amount to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and further if the amount in not deposited within 15 days the electricity connection will be disconnected.  Under these circumstances, fresh complaint has been filed.

We wanted to know from the Ld.Counsel Mr.K.Patil that this bill of Rs.10,000/- is a bill for which period?   He has shown us a bill dated 17/12/2008 no.4237 –U-II.  It is very interesting to note that the period stated in the bill is 31/10/2008 to 30/11/2008 and the meter reading is 613 and earlier reading is 560 and therefore, it is a bill for 53 units.  The bill shows that for 53 units the total bill has been shown to Rs.388.  The bill also shows arrears of Rs. 6,892.93 and amount of interest is Rs.2,713/- and thus, making  a total of Rs.9994.62 and therefore, round figure comes to Rs.9,990/- and if the amount is not paid within stipulated date, the amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid.

        Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that amount of Rs.6,892/- is arrears beyond period of  31/11/2004 to 31/01/2007.  If these were the arrears, after that period opponent specifically should have stated that, that arrears is for that particular period only.  How this is calculated is not discussed.  For the earlier bill period, interest shall not be charged.  In fact, interest over interest is charged.  However, interest of Rs.2,713.32 has been charged.  Therefore, prima-facie bill issued is not done.  All the particulars shown in the bill were not explained at all. We have also gone through the written version.  Written version only makes reference to the period  dt.01/02/2007 to 31/12/2008 and the bill for the said period is Rs.10,360.93.  But nothing has been brought on record that earlier bills as per directions were divided and separately given to the complainant. 

      All these aspects require investigation in the complaint.  We find prima facie that there are same bills which are given by the MSEB again and again to the complainant and the complainant is harassed.  Under these circumstances, simply because the stay has been granted not to disconnect the electricity connection, the interest of the opponent is not affected.  Because ultimately, there is earlier order also for recovery of the amount and there is recovery directed.  What is important that bills which are given by the opponent should disclose period for arrears and interest and other charges etc.  Such omnibus bills leads to confusion aand litigation ultimately harassing complainant.  Let the facts be as it is.  By grant of stay the consumer is protected.  MSEB should have filed say on the same date and opposed the application. In stead of that they filed application seeking time and it was possible that within such time connection was likely to be disconnected.  Therefore, while making application to file reply of stay application at least statement should have been made by Ld.Counsel that during the pendency of the filing of say electric connection of complainant would not be disconnected.  That fairness was also not shown by the opponent.

    Under these circumstances, even if the interim order has been passed, assuming that order has been passed after he left the court, it has been passed in the interest of justice.  If by such order MSEB/opponent is affected, revisional remedy is available but in stead of following that remedy, they are making very serious allegation against the members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  We cannot forget that Consumer Fora are for protecting the consumers and not for victimizing the consumers and also for harsh action whenever necessary.  We do not find any substance in the revision petition.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                    :-ORDER-:   

1.   Revision petition stands dismissed.

2.   No order as to costs.

3.   Original record and proceedings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum be sent back to it.

4.   Dictated on dais.

5.   Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.