11/03/2013
O R A L O R D E R
Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the representative of Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd challenging the judgment and order dated 20/09/2008 passed by the Dist. Forum, Nanded in CC.No. 230/2008 whereby the bill dated 24/05/2008 amounting Rs 25,380/- is cancelled and appellant is directed to pay the compensation. The respondent is the original complainant.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under.
That, the respondent /complainant is a farmer and had obtained electric connection from the appellant in the month of Oct. 2005. That he is using only 2 bulb on this electric connection. He had further contended that he had installed floor mill at his house for the purpose of his own family and that the electric bill was being issued on the commercial basis. That, his average monthly consumption was in between 12 to 13 units and the amount of bill was raising in between Rs 150/- to Rs 460/-. That he had paid the bill of Rs 1000/- including arrears for the period from 01/04/2005 to 01/05/2005. That, he had no arrears of electric bill. However, on 24/05/2008 he was issued the bill of exorbitant amount of Rs 25,380/- and was asked to pay the same upto 04/06/2008. That, the said bill was issued without any details of units consumed and was issued not by any competent authority. He had therefore filed complaint before the Dist. Forum seeking direction to cancel the said bill of Rs 25,380/- and also to pay him Rs 5000/- as mental harassment and Rs 3000/- towards cost of the complaint.
3. The appellant appeared before the Dist. Forum and filed the written version whereby the claim of the complainant was denied by them. It was contended that on 21/05/2008 the appellant had visited the house of the respondent for inspecting the meter. It was contended that during their inspection it was observed that the respondent was using 8 bulbs, one fan, one cooler and floor mill having total load of 2.4 k.wait. That the respondent had taken direct supply to his house from the service wire by-passing the meter and hence the meter was not giving the correct reading of the actual consumption and it was running slow. Therefore the spot inspection report was made and same was signed by the respondent’s brother namely Shri.Kashinath Raosaheb. That, on the basis of the said unauthorised use of the electricity the respondent was given the assessment bill of Rs 25,380/- on 24/05/2008 under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
4. The Dist. Forum after perusal of the record and hearing of the parties partly allowed the complaint and cancelled the bill issued on 24/05/2008 of Rs 25,380/- and also directed the appellant to pay Rs 2000/- towards mental agony and Rs 1000/- against cost of the complaint.
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed in this Commission which was finally heard on 14/02/2013. Adv.Smt.Chhaya Gaikwad was present for the appellant
. None was present for the respondent although the respondent was present in person on earlier date. The appellant had filed this appeal along with the delay condonation application showing delay of 15 days and the same was condoned by the order of this Commission on 06/09/2010. We heard the learned advocate for the appellant finally on 14/02/2013 and the appeal was reserved for judgment and order
6. The learned counsel Smt. Chhaya Gaikwad present for the appellant submitted that the Dist. Forum has not considered the spot inspection report. She submitted that the spot inspection was carried out in presence of the brother of respondent namely Shri. Kashinath and during the spot inspection it was revealed that the respondent has taken electric supply directly by using U-pin and therefore the electrical meter was showing low consumption. She contended that the Dist. Forum wrongly considered that since the meter cover was intact there was no any unauthorised consumption of electricity. However, the above said fact of direct connection was neglected by the Dist. Forum. She further submitted that the sanction load to the respondent was only 0.90 kw. However, as per the spot inspection report he had unauthorisely used 210 kw. She also contended that the Dist. Forum has wrongly considered that the Asstt. Engineer was not authorised person for spot inspection. However, as per section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act they have been authorised by Government under notification dated 26 Sept. 2006. Therefore, she averred that the Dist. Forum without any appreciation of the defence taken by the appellant has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order and which requires to be set aside.
7. We have carefully gone through the papers and also considered in detail the oral submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum below, it is seen that the Dist. Forum has relied on the remarks given in the spot inspection report about the meter body seal which is mentioned as “Ok” i.e. in a proper condition and therefore wrongly concluded that there was no any unauthorised use of electricity . In fact perusal of the spot panchanama clearly reveal that the respondent had obtained direct electric supply by using U—pin by-passing the electric meter and therefore whatever electricity was consumed by the respondent it was being shown on the meter and naturally it was showing the low consumption of electricity. It is also neglected by the Dist. Forum that the said spot inspection report is signed by the brother of the respondent and has wrongly held that there was no spot panchanama made by the appellant. Therefore, the spot inspection report can not be considered. The said spot inspection report also reveals that the respondent was using 8 bulbs, 1 fan, 1 cooler and floor mill for which the actual load being utilised was 2.140 kw as against the sanction load of 0.90 kw. It is tobe noted that the respondent in his complaint has mentioned that he was having only 2 bulbs which makes it clear that he had not come before the Dist. Forum with clean hands.
8. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and observation it can be said that the Dist. Forum below has miserably failed to appreciate properly the evidence on record i.e. spot inspection report which was done in the presence of the brother of the respondent. That after filing of the written version by the appellant before the Dist. Forum the respondent has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to deny the contention made by the appellant on the basis of spot inspection report. We therefore find that the assessment bill dated 24/05/2008 for Rs 25,380/- under Section 126 of the Electricity Act ought not to have been cancelled by the Dist. Forum below. We find no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in issuing the said bill. In the circumstances we have to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum by allowing the appeal. In the result we proceed to pass the 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. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
