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

1.       This appeal is preferred by the opponent No 1 and 2 against the  judgment and order dated 07/04/2007  passed by the Dist. Forum, Nanded in CC.No.153/2005.

2.       Facts in brief giving rise to the appeal are as under.

          That the original complainant who is the original opponent filed the complaint in the Dist. Forum, Nanded. Allegations made in complaint  in brief are  that the original opponents/appellants  provided him  electric connection to run rice mill in the year 1997. They   issued bill for Rs 78,385/- in the month of April. 2000 to the complainant which was incorrect and therefore the complainant filed Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Degloor registered as RCS.No.167/2000 challenging the amount of the said bill. The said court passed  ad-interim order  directing the original opponents to accept monthly amount of Rs 3000/- from the complainant towards the electricity charges till decision of the said suit. Therefore, complainant is depositing Rs 3000/- per month in the said Court regularly. However on 14/06/2005, the original opponents/appellants  again issued bill of Rs 4,19,160/- tobe paid on or before 20/06/2005, which is also incorrect. Therefore complainant filed the complaint before the Dist. Forum, Nanded praying that declaration may be given that the said amount of 4,19,160/- is not due from him  and to set aside the said bill and further  prayed that opponents/appellants may be directed not to disconnect his electric supply for none payment of the said bill and they may be directed to pay compensation of Rs 50,000/-.

3.       The original opponent No. 2 resisted the complaint by filing written version. It raised contention that since Civil Suit No. 169/2000 filed by the original complainant is still pending in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Degloor, the complaint filed by the complainant is premature and hence it may be dismissed. It also submitted that  electric power meter of the complainant was   changed from time to time in presence of the complainant whenever it was found necessary.  Statement of  accounts of the complainant is maintained and its extract was produced for the month of April 2002 to June 2005 showing  actual consumption of electricity  made by the complainant for his rice mill and amount of Rs 4,22,160/- is shown due from the complainant in the month of June 2005. The bill of Rs 4,19,160/-  includes the amount of bill which is under challenge  before the Civil Court in the Civil Suit and unless the said suit is decided, the complaint can not be entertained. It is  therefore prayed by the opponent No. 2 that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.       The Dist. Forum after considering evidence adduced by both the sides and hearing their respective advocates, passed the impugned judgment and order. It came to the conclusion that the disputed bill also shows the arrears  and that the complainant already deposited amount as per direction of the Civil Court and therefore the arrears shown in the bill and the interest applied thereon is incorrect and hence it is tobe set aside. It is also observed that  bills issued  for a long period by showing average consumption is also not justified and in such a case average bill only for last six month can be given. It is also observed that the bill dated 08/03/2000 for Rs 42,604/- shows that is has been paid by the complainant on 31/03/2000 and in the account statement amount (CPL) of Rs 63461.72 is shown as arrears in the  month of April 2000 and that current bill is of  Rs 14,446.55  and that  total amount of the bill is  Rs 78108.33. Therefore the Dist. Forum concluded that amount Rs 63,461.72 is shown in excess and therefore  it requires tobe deducted from  the future bills. It is also observed that the complainant has initially deposited Rs 78,000/- and then Rs 21,000/- in the Civil Court of Degloor and therefore the said amounts require tobe adjusted in the future bills and the interest shown in excess thereon also requires tobe deducted. Therefore it has  directed  the opponents to deduct total Rs 1,72,461.78 from the bill of Rs 4,19,290/- and  also deduct interest thereon and to issue correct bill. It has also directed  the complainant to pay amount and the bill of the corrected amount after receiving it. It has  also directed the opponent to change the electric meter by  installing  new meter and to adjust Rs 50,000/- deposited by the complainant as per interim order passed by the Dist. Forum. It has also directed the  opponent to pay Rs 1000/- to the complainant towards cost of the complaint.

5.       Feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid, order original opponents have  preferred this appeal. We have heard Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale who appeared for the   appellant. At that time advocate of the respondent failed to appear. Therefore appeal was reserved for judgment and order. Adv.Shri.B.N.Gadegaonkar  appeared for the respondent after appeal was reserved for judgment and order.

6.       The advocate of the appellant mainly contended that when the matter was subjudiced  before the Civil Court, the District Forum should not have  entertained the complaint which was filed to challenge the subsequent bill in which the  arrears of previous bill challenged in civil suit was also  shown. He relied upon the observations made in the following cases.

i)        Baswanath Mukherjee- Versus- West Bengal State Electricity Board Divisional Engineer and Ors. 2012 (1) CPR 76 (NC). In that case complaint was filed with the allegation that bill was issued excessively  for the electricity supplied to his premises on the ground that the electricity meter was running about 50 % slow and the seal of the meter appeared to have been tampered. The Dist. Forum allowed the complaint and quashed and   set aside  the bill and awarded compensation of Rs 10,000/-. The State Commission in appeal  set aside the order of the Dist. Forum. In revision petition, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that  the correct course for a consumer  with a dispute regarding correctness of electricity meter or of the billed  electricity consumption would to apply to the Electrical Inspector designated. In this case the petitioner did not adopt that course and instead choose to approach the District Forum. The revision petition filed by the original complainant was therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

ii)       Proprietor M/s. Jabalpur Tractors – versus- Sedmal Jainarain and another in Civil appeal No. 9928 of 1995 decided on 30/10/1995 in that case the garage charges were  challenged before the  civil court  and the civil suit was pending and matter was sub-judice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Hon’ble National Commission is not justified in directing handing over possession of the car to respondent.

iii)      Dr.Dinesh – versus – Swastik Builders and Ors 2001 (3) CPR 177 (NC)  In that case civil suit for specific performance was filed by the complainant when the opposite party committed breach of agreement of sale.  The complaint was filed before the Dist. Forum alleging deficiency  in service. It was found that the relief claimed in the civil suit and the said claim was overlapping . It is therefore observed that the civil suit which was more comprehensive was pending on same subject matter. It is not for consumer Fora to entertain any such complaint and therefore the said complaint was liable to be dismissed.  

7.       In the instant matter admittedly the complainant i.e. respondent herein challenged the  bill for Rs 78,385/- issued by the appellant in the month of April 2000 by filing civil suit No. 169/2000 before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Degloor and it was pending and during  the pendency of that suit, interim order was passed by that Civil Court directing the complainant  to deposit Rs 3000/- per month  towards electricity consumption charges in the said court till decision of the suit. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs 3000/- per month in that court regularly and inspite of that, the original opponent i.e. appellant issued incorrect bill of Rs 4,19,150/- on 14/06/2005. The copy of the  C.P.L.(Consumer

Personal Ledger ) was produced before  District Forum below and its copy is  also produced in this appeal. It  shows monthly entries  about the monthly reading of consumption, amount paid monthly and net arrears. It started from the month of April 2000 and it is till the month of June 2005.  In the  month of April 2000 arrears of Rs 63461.78 were shown against the complainant. The said arrears were increased monthly and the amount paid by the complainant from time to time to the appellant were also shown in it. The  arrears  had started from amount of Rs 63,461.78 in the month of April 2000 and they  were increased to Rs 4,19,160/- in  the month of June 2005. Thus the last disputed bill of Rs 4,19,160/- includes said  arrears which existed   prior to the month of April 2000.

          The civil suit No. 169/2000 has been filed in the Civil Court by the complainant   challenging the bill of Rs 78,385/- issued in the month of April 2000.

          The complainant deposited Rs 3000/- per month during the pendency of that suit in the Civil Court of Degloor. Thus the said amount was not paid to the appellant i.e. original opponent and hence the amount deposited in the Civil Court was not  credited to the personal ledger  account of the complainant maintained by appellant. In our considered view when the last disputed bill of Rs 4,19,160/- includes the amount of the first disputed bill of the month of April 2000, which is challenged in the Civil Court and when the amount deposited in the Civil Court was not transferred to the appellant to credit to personal ledger  account of the complainant maintained by the appellant then it can not be said that arrears shown in the account of the complainant are not as per the actual electricity consumption or the bills issued  are incorrect.

10.     The Civil Court  has not yet given any  declaration in the said civil suit No. 169/2000  that the first bill of  the month of April 2000 issued for Rs 78,108.83 showing  arrears of Rs 63,461.78 is illegal. Therefore when civil suit challenging the afore said first bill is pending no finding can be given that arrears of Rs 63,461.78 shown in the first  is illegal or  incorrect. Moreover,  it is for the Civil Court to decide as to whether a total mount of Rs 1,62,461.78 deposited by the plaintiff/complainant  in the afore said civil suit  is tobe adjusted towards the arrears, shown  against the plaintiff in that suit. The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to  give direction to the appellant to deduct  the said amount deposited in the Civil Court from any  bill and also to cancel the interest applied thereon and shown in the last disputed bill of Rs 4,19,290/-.Therefore the direction given as mentioned above by the Dist. Forum under impugned judgment and order can not be sustained under law.

11.     The appellant i.e. original opponent has produced the account extract of the complainant (CPL) showing  all the detail particulars of the consumption  charges applied  from time to time and also payment made by the complainant. The complainant has not proved that the last bill of Rs  4,19,460.02 issued in   the month of June 2005 showing arrears of  previous month  is illegal or  incorrect. Hence, we find no deficiency in service provided by the original opponent/appellant to the complainant/respondent. The complainant is therefore not entitled to any relief as  sought for in the  complaint. Thus complaint deserves to be allowed and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

O   R    D    E   R

1.                 Appeal is allowed. 

2.                 The consumer complaint which is registered as CC.No.153/2005 is hereby dismissed.

3.                 Both the parties shall bear their own cost.

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