FIRST APPEAL NO.1009 OF 2008 Date of filing: 18/07/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.392/2007

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SATARA

Date of order : 18/11/2009



1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

through its Executive Engineer

Vidyut Bhavan, Krishnanagar

Satara, Dist.Satara

2. Assistant Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Sub-division office, Wathar station

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara

3. Junior Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

D.O.Wathar Station

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara ……Appellants/org.O.Ps

V/s.

Shri Chandrahar Maruti Jagdale

At & Post Satara Road(Padali)

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara ……Respondent/org.complainant



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

Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for Appellants.

Junior Engineer Rahul Nimkar of the appellant present

Respondent Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale in person

: ORAL ORDER:

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

Heard Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for Appellants.



This appeal has been settled between the appellants and the respondent and the respondent has filed on record terms of settlement which are duly signed. The respondent in this matter has signed terms of settlement. Respondent is present in person. Since the parties have settled their dispute, order which has been passed by the District Consumer Forum Satara in consumer complaint no.392/2007 is hereby set aside and instead appeal is disposed of in terms of settlement marked as “Exhibit X”. In view of settlement, we pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside and instead it is substituted by terms of settlement “Exhibit X”.

2. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

3. Amount which was deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be returned to the appellant.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2008 Date of filing: 18/07/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.387/2007

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SATARA

Date of order : 18/11/2009

1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

through its Executive Engineer

Vidyut Bhavan, Krishnanagar

Satara, Dist.Satara

2. Assistant Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Sub-division office, Wathar station

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara

3. Junior Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

D.O.Wathar Station

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara ……Appellants/org.O.Ps

V/s.

Shri Chandrakant Balkrishna Jagdale

At & Post Satara Road(Padali)

Taluka Koregaon, Dist.Satara ……Respondent/org.complainant



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

Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale-Advocate for Appellants.

Junior Engineer Rahul Nimkar of the appellant present

Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale-A.R. for respondent

: ORAL ORDER:

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

This appeal is directed as against the order of the District Consumer Forum Satara passed in consumer complaint no.387/2007 decided on 17/6/2008. However, appellant and respondent have settled the matter. They have produced on record terms of settlement duly signed by the parties. Respondent is not present. He has been represented by Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale, who is cousin brother of the respondent and the respondent has also given authority to that effect by signing affidavit in favour of Mr.Chandrahar M.Jagdale. Under these circumstances, terms of settlement are accepted and they are marked as “Exhibit X”. Authorized representative who represents respondent accepts terms of settlement, which has been arrived at voluntarily. In view of settlement, we pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside and instead it is substituted by terms of settlement “Exhibit X”.

2. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

3. Amount which was deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be returned to the appellant.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2009

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 816 OF 2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD.

Vijendra s/o. Daulatrao Dandge

R/o. Flat No.2, Cidcon, N-4,

Shopping Complex Behind

MIT Hospital, Cidcon,

N-4, Aurangabad. … Appellant

-VERSUS-

Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Company,

Through its Junior Engineer,

MSEDCL Unit Mukundwadi,

Aurangabad. … Respondent



Coram: Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present: Adv. Smt. Asha D. Dandge for the appellant.



:: ORAL ORDER::
Per Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member



1. The present appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2009 for enhancement of the compensation amount in complaint case No. 816/2008.



2. The appellant/complainant’s case before the Forum is that, he had taken electric connection for domestic purpose. It is contended that they had deposited the bills upto Feb.2008. It is contended that the no bill upto July,2008 was issued to him. In july,2008 he was given bill of Rs.36,510/- showing some arrears. It is contended that, the complainant informed that the reading shown in the bill is wrong. Complainant persuaded even then bill was not corrected. It is contended that on 22.08.2008 the supply was disconnected without giving any intimation. The complainant was forced to deposit Rs.3,500/- as a part payment. On 26.08.2008 the supply was restored, thus the complainant approached the Forum for compensation.



3. The respondent appeared before the Forum and contended that new supply was provided on 10.06.2007 to the complainant. It is contended that in Oct.2008 the bill was corrected and corrected bill was issued. It is contended that the complaint is filed in December, 2008. Before filing the complaint the bill was corrected, thus there is no deficiency on their part.



4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the mental agony and cost within one month.



5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order complainant came in appeal for enhancement of the compensation.



6. We heard Adv. Smt. Asha D. Dandge for the appellant. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers it reveals that, the bill of Rs.36,510/- showing some arrears was issued to the complainant in July,2008. It also reveals that the complainant had informed about the wrong reading shown in the bill. It has also come on record that the supply was disconnected on 22.08.2008. The supply was restored on 26.08.2008. Thus, it is apparent that for about 4 to 5 days there was no supply. It appears that the bill was corrected and issued corrected bill. It also appears that the complainant has no complaint about bill in question. The Forum has considered all these aspects and granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- considering the contention of the complaint. The amount granted towards the compensation appears to be proportionate. We are not inclined to interfere the order. Appeal is dismissed summarily.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2009

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 63 OF 2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: PARBHANI.

Naimuddin Hamidduin Siddiqui

R/o. Iqbal Naga, Parbhani,

Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. … Appellant

VERSUS

1. Mohd. Mazhar S/o. Moh. Saheab @ Nawab

R/o. Iqbal Nagar, Parbhani.


2. The Executive Engineer,

Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Company,

Parbhani Division, Jintur Road,

Parbhani … Respondents

Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present: Adv. Shri. P.N. Kalani, for appellant.



:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member



1. The present appeal is filed by the Naimuddin Siddiqui against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2009 in complaint case No. 63/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani.



2. The respondent no.1 had filed the complaint against MSEB for restraining them from disconnecting the electric supply and for compensation Rs.5,000/-.



3. It was the case of the complainant that, the electric supply was restored to him on 06.03.2009. He had deposited the amount of Rs. 7,000/- towards the deposit of the meter in question. Accordingly, MSEB restored the supply and allotted the meter bearing No. R-53583-1-2. It is contended that, the present appellant had taken objection to the MSEB and thus, the respondent threatened him for disconnecting the supply within 2 – 3 days, which compelled him to approach the Forum for injunction.



4. MSEB appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim contending that, No Objection Certificate (NOC) given by Municipal Council has been cancelled, as the complainant has not filed the papers regarding ownership of house and present appellant raised the objection for supply.



5. Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and restrained the MSEB from disconnecting the supply till the decision of Civil Court.



6. The present appellant is not party to the complaint in question. The supply is restored to the complainant on the basis that house in question is in possession of the complainant since long and he deposited security amount. It has also come on record that, the civil dispute of the house in question is going on between the complainant and appellant. As the supply was given by the MSEB on the basis of possession, the present appellant can not be said to be aggrieved person by the order of District Forum. We have already mentioned that, the civil dispute regarding ownership in between complainant and appellant is pending before the Court. The Forum also passed the order and restrained the MSEB from disconnecting the supply till the decision of the civil court. MSEB can be said to be an aggrieved person. As per Sec. 15 of C.P. Act -- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Dist. Forum may prefer an appeal against such order. The dispute regarding ownership is pending. The appellant can not take the benefit of the said dispute which is pending before civil court. Appeal is dismissed summarily.

FIRST APPEAL NO.66 OF 2009 Date of filing: 17/01/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.152/2007

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE

Date of order : 14/12/2009

M/s.Roshal Garden

Through its Sole proprietor

Mrs.Chandrakanta Satish Sharma

Pune Nasik Road

Dhawade Wasti, Bhosari

Pune 411 039 ……Appellant/org.complainant

V/s.

1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

through Chief Executive Engineer

Bhosari division, Bhosari

Pune -26

2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

through Chief Executive Engineer

Rasta Peth, Administrative building

1st floor, Pune 11 ……Respondents/org.O.Ps



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

Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Appellant in person

: ORAL ORDER:

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



This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/11/2008 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.152/2007. Since the complaint has been dismissed, complainant has filed this appeal. Complainant is running a business of a hotel in the name and style of M/s.Roshal Garden, which is a sole proprietary business. He has taken three phase connection. Bill which was tendered by the respondents for Rs.1,74,510/- is challenged on the ground that it is a wrong bill. Initially average bill was given. That has been paid by the complainant. Average bill was given because meter was not working. Thereafter new meter was installed. After installation of the meter, it appears that the bills which were received were less than the average bill and, therefore, he has claimed an amount of Rs.2,12,709/-. What is important to be noted that connection is given for a hotel business and, therefore, complainant/appellant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ under the Act.

Second aspect that after installation of the meter, if the bill is of the lesser amount that cannot be a ground to say that the average bill which was given was higher and amount should be returned back. What is important to be noted that the average bill is always given on the basis of electric load which was provided and reserved for the complainant. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal. Hence the following order:-

ORDER

Appeal hereby stands rejected.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2005

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 249 OF 2004

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: PARBHANI.

Heerasinh Gulabsinh Chandel

R/o. Vaibahvnagar, Jintur Road,

Parbhani-431401. … Appellant

VERSUS

The Executive Engineer,

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,

Parbhani. … Respondent

Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Appellant in person.

Adv. Shri. S.N. Tandale, appeared for respondent.

::ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member

1. Shri. Heerasinh Gulabsinh Chandel resident of Parbhani appellant herein/original complainant challenges in this appeal two orders passed by District Consumer Forum, Pabhani.



2. Complainant filed complaint No. 249/2003 which was decided on 09.09.2004 thereafter, complainant filed execution petition No.67/2004 which was also decided on 18.06.2005. Complainant came in appeal by challenging both these orders.



3. Complainant had grievance about disconnection of electricity supply without any intimation. With this grievance he filed complaint against MSEB which was partly allowed by District Forum, Parbhani. By its order District Forum directed the MSEB to adjust the amount of the bill. District Forum also directed MSEB to get the application for permanent disconnection from the complainant, and then within one month electricity should be permanently disconnected. On 2nd April, 2005 complainant filed execution petition No.67/2004 which was decided by District Forum on 18.06.2005. District Forum held that the order of Dist. Forum dated 09.09.2004 has been complied by the MSEB therefore; there is no necessity to pass the order u/s. 25 or u/s 27 of C.P. Act. The complainant challenges both these orders in the appeal which was filed on 20.08.2005.



4. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Appellant appeared in person. Adv. Shri. S.N. Tandale, appeared for respondent. We heard both the parties and perused the record. Order dated 09.09.2004 passed by District Forum in complaint case No.249/2003 is the order under challenge but appeal is filed on 20.08.2005 beyond the period of limitation. Application for condonation of delay is not filed with the appeal memo. Therefore, in our view, the appeal is barred by limitation. The order in execution petition No.67/2004 is dated 18.06.2005. According to said order Dist. Forum held that compliance of the order dated 09.09.2004 has been done by MSEB therefore, no necessity to issue any order u/s. 25 or 27 of C.P. Act. In our view, there is no substance in this appeal and therefore appeal is to be dismissed. The present appeal is barred by limitation. Delay application is also not filed with the appeal memo. In these facts and circumstances we are of the view that appeal has no substance hence, dismissed. No order as to cost.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2005

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 211 OF 2003

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,

Board through Assistant Engineer,

M.S.E.B. Raver, … Appellant

-VERSUS-

Rajiv Raghunath Patil

R/o. Shanti Complex,

Savada Road, Raver,

Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. … Respondent



Coram : Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.



Present: Adv. Smt. S.D. Lathi, for appellant.

Adv. Shri. Pramod Gaikwad, for respondent.

:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Smt. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member

1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board Raver preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2005 passed in complaint case No.211/2003.



2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

Complainant Rajiv Raghunath Patil is resident of Raver Dist. Jalgaon. He is owner of Shanti Complex. For one shop of said complex he took electric connection in the year 2001. His meter number is 800719457. Said meter is obtained for commercial purpose. He received first bill on 15.09.2000 for meter reading of 15 units for Rs.230/- only. Thereafter on 03.11.2001 he received bill of 40 units for Rs.460/- with arrears. On 31.03.2001 to 31.05.2001 he received bill of Rs.23,000/- including Rs.19,501/- as arrears. For every month he received the bill showing meter is faulty. Last bill dated 13.02.2003 received by him for Rs.19,460/-. He received every bill since year 2000 to 2003 showing meter faulty. As per the submission of complainant his meter was recording reading rightly but without recording reading MSEB issued bill showing meter is faulty. He approached to MSEB for correcting the reading and correcting the bills. But on 22.02.2002 his electricity supply was disconnected. Many times he issued letter to the MSEB but they did not respond to his complaint. Therefore, he approached to District Forum to cancel all the bills. He also prayed for the bills for correct reading to be issued regularly and requested to reconnect the supply.



3. Appellant appeared before District Forum and filed their written statement. It is submitted by appellant that after considering the consumption of the complainant and according to consumers personal ledger said bills were issued therefore bills are legal and proper. From March-2000 to Jun-2003 bills were issued legally and thereafter applying proper multiplier factor bill is issued from 15.09.2000 to 11.06.2003.



4. After hearing both the parties District Forum cancelled the bills from March-2002 to June-2003. District Forum also directed the appellant to issue fresh bills from March, 2002 to 11 June, 2003. Dist. Forum also directed complainant to pay bill of 924 units which were consumed by him.



5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order MSEB came in appeal.



6. Adv. Smt. S.D. Lathi appeared for appellant and Adv. Pramod Gaikwad, appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Adv. Lathi that meter of respondent is found faulty. Therefore bills on average basis were charged but respondent did not deposit even a single bill. As per request of respondent service line connection charges were revised and revised bills were issued to respondent. But respondent neglected to pay the bill therefore his supply was disconnected in March, 2003. With view to avoid the payment complainant approached the District Forum.



7. Adv. Pramod Gaikwad submitted that, electric connection was obtained for only one shop. Appellant issued the bill showing the status of meter as faulty since the year 2000 to 2003. Every time bills were issued on average basis. Actual reading of meter was not recorded by the employees of MSEB. Complainant many time approached to MSEB for correcting the bills. Respondent was to approach the senior officer of MSEB, thereafter bill of Rs.7000/- was issued to him.



8. We heard the arguments of both the counsels and perused the record. It seems from the bills on record that every time bill is issued on average basis and for at least one year meter was shown faulty but bills were issued on average basis. We are of the view that electricity board has statutory obligation to take meter reading every month. They can not issue bills for excess consumption for period more than six months. It reveals from record that bills were issued every time on average basis showing status of meter ‘faulty.’ But appellant did not send the meter for testing. Even the meter was not referred to electrical inspector. Dispute as to correctness of recording reading in the meter were should be referred to electrical inspector u/s. 206 (6). Revised Bills can be issued only for period of six months to the maximum. MSEB has no authority to disconnect supply on the ground that meter recorded incorrect reading for more periods and amount for the said period was not paid. In the instant case meter was not referred to the electrical inspector. Even meter was not tested by the MSEB. Without referring meter to the electrical inspector supply was disconnected. These are all the instances of deficiency in service.



9. In Sub Divisional Officer, Chandigarh –Vs- Rupalsingh 1991 (I) CLT 258, the amount of arrears set aside the bill on the ground that, dispute was not referred to Inspector and arrears can not be charged for the period exceeding six months.



10. In the Secretary, Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. N. Mani and others’ reported in 1996 (1) CLT 401. It is held that,



Electricity bill-Board has a statutory obligation to take meter reading every six months, they can not issue bill for excess consumption for a period prior to 6 months-the excess bill is not valid under the law.



Consumption of electricity is neither disputed nor denied by the respondents. The maximum period, for which the bill can be raised in respect of defective meter, is for six months and not more. Even after the meter has been found defective for the said period of five years, the revised bill can be charged for the period of six months. It is the obligation and duty of appellants to maintain and cheque the meter.

In view of above discussion, we are upholding the order of District Forum. Hence, the order.

O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the respondent.

3. Copy of order be furnished to the parties.

sir , i am subhashchandra Ratikant Mukharjee. My address is :- eknath nagar , jintur road, parbhani... 431401.
My consumer no of MSEB is :- 530010406616. sir as per the mseb board my meter is faulty but it is faulty due to the checking of my meter , my meter seal is broken by them due to meter checking. so they take objection and paid me excess bill ... this is from two years. in between they send me bill of so much thousand and due to the bill they disconnect my line for three time.. for such process firstly i paid 5000/- on 29-2-2008 and to second time paid 5000/- on 24-10-2008 and for third time 5000/- on 12-8-2009 ... between i complain to the mseb board on 23-9-2008.. but there is no any action but recently they send me a bill of RS.52830/- (fifty two thousand eight hundred and thirty only).. and force me to pay this otherwise line will be disconnected for fourth time as per this i send them a recent complaint on 11-03-2010 to send me cpl and clear my probleme but there is no result so please do something and free me from this headache... i hope my complaint will give me good result ... so sir please..........




FRom:- subhashchandra Ratikant Mukharjee. parbhani.431401
contact.no:- 9822223452.