Date 08/03/2013

O  R  A  L    O  R  D  E  R 

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

1.       This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/04/2007 passed by the Dist. Forum, Aurangabad in CC. 482/2006 by which the Dist. Forum below has cancelled the electric bill dated 20/06/2006 and gave direction to the opposite party i.e. appellant to issue fresh bill within one month and amount deposited by the original complainant be added in the revised bill.

2.       The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that, she had taken electric connection from the opposite party. There is a flour mill in her house and the electric load sanctioned for that flour mill was 10 HP.  On  30/05/2006 respondent told the complainant that she is utilizing electricity more than 1 HP load sanctioned by the opposite party. They prepared the panchanma and disconnected the electric supply of the flour mill on the same day. On that date i.e. 30/05/2006 the complainant made an application to the opposite party to increase the load by 1 HP for running Chilly Grinding Machine. The opposite party also sent two electric bills on 20/06/2006 to the complainant and directed  complainant to pay Rs 5930/-. No clarification was given by the opposite party how the amount of Rs 5930/- is demanded. The said bill is of excessive amount. The opposite party did not sanction 1 HP load for running of Chilly Grinding Machine by the complainant. Therefore the complainant prayed that direction be  given to the opposite party to pay her compensation of Rs 46,500/- with interest as described in the complaint.

3.       The opposite party  filed written version and thereby denied the claim. It is submitted by the opposite party that the complainant was using excess load by installing Chilly Grinding Machine ( Mirchi Kandap ) without its permission. Therefore at the time of inspection  it’s Officer had advised for getting  sanction of excess load as per rules. The complainant  filed an application on 30/05/2006 for that purpose.  The opposite party did not sanction 1 HP  load because  no objection certificate from  the Muncipal Corporation was not produced  by the complainant and it was necessary. The opposite party issued the bill for three months to the complainant amounting to Rs 6997/-, as per meter reading and second  bill was issued for Rs 5930/- under section under section  126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for use of excess load without permission. Therefore the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency on its part in service provided to the complainant.

4.       The Dist. Forum below after considering the evidence brought on record and hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that in  the bill of Rs 5930/- given to the complainant, it is not stated as to  what is the sanction load and actual reading and date of reading. It also observed that no documents were produced before it in respect of the panchanama prepared on 30/05/2006 about the excess load. It also observed that no inspection report and provisional assessment bill was  produced for giving opportunity to complainant to submit his case. Therefore it came to the conclusion that the said bill of Rs 5930/- is incorrect.  It therefore cancelled that bill and directed  the opposite party to issue revise bill within a month.

5.       Feeling aggrieved  and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the original  opposite party has preferred this appeal. We have heard advocate of appellant. None appeared for respondent for final hearing.  

6.       It is submitted by Smt. Smita Medhekar, the learned advocate appearing for the  appellant that  relief has been  granted by the Dist. Forum  below which was not  sought in the complaint. She  invited our attention to the said complaint. It is seen from the prayer clause of that complaint that no such relief as granted by the Dist. Forum was claimed by the complainant. The complainant had claimed only compensation of Rs 46,500/- due to the loss sustained by her on account of non sanction of additional load of 1 HP for running Chilly Grinding Machine and due to the loss sustained by him to other reasons. We thus find that the Dist. Forum below has exceeded  it’s jurisdiction by cancelling the aforesaid bill.

7.       It is  not disputed by the complainant that he was running the Chilly Grinding Machine without getting sanctioned additional load of 1 HP. Therefore it was within the power of opposite party/appellant to issue bill U/Sec. 126 of Electricity Act due to unauthorized consumption of its  electricity. Moreover, it is also within the discretion of the opposite party only to sanction the additional load only after getting no objection certificate of the Muncipal Corporation. Therefore we hold that no   relief  can be granted due to the  aforesaid reasons. Thus the impugned judgment and order is perverse and it can  not be sustained in the  eye of law. We are  therefore inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order  passed by the Dist. Forum. Hence,  following order.

                   O   R    D    E    R

1.       Appeal is   allowed.

2.       The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum is     hereby quashed and set aside.

3.       The complaint stands dismissed.

4.       No order as to costs.

5.       Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.

 Pronounced on 08/03/2013