Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

**Sidhant** · 08-31-2009, 11:47 AM

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI

FIRST APPEAL NO.898/2009 Date of filing: 29/06/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.539/2007 Date of order : 10/08/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KOLHAPUR

@ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1051/2009

Mr.Babu Keshav Mulik

R/o.Mauje Shirgaon

Taluka Chandgad

District Kolhapur ………..Appellant/org.complainant

v/s.

1. Assistant Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

Sub Divisional office Chandgad

Taluka Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur

2. Executive Engineer

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.

D.O.Gadhinglaj division

District Kolhapur ………Respondents/org.O.Ps

Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present : None for the appellant

O R A L O R D E R

Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

There is delay of 155 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc. application no.1051/2009 for condonation of delay is filed along with supporting affidavit. In the application for condonation of delay, ground mentioned is that the complainant was under bonafide impression that period of limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days. Complainant then consulted lawyer and learned from him that period of limitation is 30 days. Hence there is delay of 155 days in filing this appeal. Now ignorance of law is no excuse. Complainant ought to have approached Advocate to file appeal within time. His impression that for filing appeal 90 days limitation is provided was malafide and not a bonafide one. Law presumes that everybody knows the law of the land. So appellant cannot be heard to say that he was under bonafide impression that 90 days is provided for filing the appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Thus there appears to be no just and sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Cause has been mentioned for the sake of showing just and sufficient cause. It is not at all bonafide. Therefore we are not at all inclined to allow the misc. application for condonation of delay. It is out rightly rejected.

Still we have gone through the judgement to see if there is any merit in the appeal filed by the complainant. None is present for the appellant. Complainant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the fact that his complaint no.539/2007 has been dismissed after contest by the Forum below by its judgement and order dated 22/12/2008. Appellant had a grievance against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. (MSEDC) in respect of bills issued by it to him. It was found that while taking reading of the bills at the house of appellant, the out sourced staff employed by MSEDC had taken reading in three digits, whereas in fact the meter was having five digits reading. This came to the notice of MSEDC officials. They inspected the meter and they found that there was mistake committed by meter reader. Meter was running properly and incorrect reading was taken by inadvertence by the staff employed by MSEDC and therefore fresh bills were issued. Forum below therefore found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of MSEDC and bills were properly issued and there was no substance in the complaint. As such, it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, original complainant has filed this appeal.

On perusal of the complaint, written statement and the affidavits and documents placed on record, we are inclined to agree with the finding recorded by the Forum below. Forum below rightly arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the complaint, since there was no deficiency of any kind on the part of MSEDC. Said order of dismissal of complaint is appearing to be just and proper. There is no need to interfere in the order of District Consumer Forum by this Commission sitting in appeal. Appeal is devoid of any substance. Hence the following order:-

ORDER

Misc. application for condonation of delay stands rejected.

Consequently, appeal stands summarily rejected.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member

Ms.

Unregistered · 11-03-2011, 06:19 PM

Date – 03rd Nov 2011
To
Junior Executive Engineer
MSEB
Nanded

Sub – Incorrect Meter Reading/incorrect Billing
Dear Sir
I Mr Samir Saraiya on behalf of my house owner Shri Dhage Jaysing Vithal ( Consumer Account No- 55001117054. House Address- F.NO.304 G.NO.214, Wrandawan Apartment, Taroda,Nanded-431602) would like to intimate you that we have received the electricity bill for month of Oct-2011 with incorrect meter reading. As on date (03/11/11) the meter reading is displaying 2280 units but the bill is printed with 2680 units. Due to this the amount to be paid reflecting on bill is Rs 3150/- which also becomes incorrect.
Requesting you to kindly send across your line man and have the same cross checked. Also kindly make necessary corrections in our bill with current units/no of units consumed/amount to be paid etc and forward us the copy of revised bill so that same can be cleared.
Will anticipate a quick and favorable assistance for the same.

Thanking you

Best Regards

For Dhage Jaysing Vithal
Samir Saraiya
F.NO.304 G.NO.214, Wrandawan Apartment, Taroda,Nanded-431602
Consumer Account No- 550011170544

Unregistered · 04-24-2012, 06:44 PM

I am resident of Vadavali, Naigaon (West), Taluka- Vasai, Dist. Thane. MSEDCL changed my running (mechanical) electricity meter with electronic meter, without any notice/ knowledge to me, somewhere in March-April, 2011. Thereafter, from the September, 2011, suddenly the MSEDCL started sending me bills by charging @ commercial rates, though the electricity connection is being used for domestic uses only. There is no commercial establishment / factory around my house. It may please be noted here that, the the electricity connection is in the name of one - Dr. S. D. Fernandes, from whom I had purchased the premises,long back. Application for change in name was submitted, but it was lost in the office of the MSEDCL, and hence the connection is is still in the name of old consumer. The fresh application in this behalf, is being submitted to MSEDCL.
After installation of new electronic meter, it appears that the outsourced meter reader have no knowledge of reading of the electronic meter and he continually from April 2011 till March, 2012 had noted as 'R. N. A'. (reading not available) / 'Closed'. However, the bills were issued by the MSEDCL on the average basis, for April to August, 2011. These billls are regularly paid by me.
After seeing the inflated bill for September, 2011, it was noticed that the MSEDCL had charged the electricity charges @ commercial rates. I had immediately lodged the written complaint with the MSEDCL's local office at Mulgaon, (Vasai). The officer at Mulgaon office, Mr Venkatesh promised me to look into the matter. To my surprise, instead of rectifying the mistake of ' commercial use' to 'domestic use' and issuing the bills as per domestic use, from October, 2011, the MSEDCL started to send me bills,at the commercial rates only, but showing credit balance to my account, and thereby issuing negative bills. I was following the matter with Shri Venkatesh, every month, and as usual, he was promising me to do the needfull. In April, 2012, the (socalled) credit shown in my account squared up, and I was issued inflated bill with commercial rates. As usual I contacted Shri Venkatesh, and informed him that if the mistake is not rectified, then I will take up the matter with appropriate forum. After this follow up, the MSEDCL has on 23/04/2012, issued me bill @ domestic rates, for the period April, 2011 to March, 2012.
As per this bill, the total consumption of electricity is 1232 units, which comes average of about 103 units per month.This consumption appears to be correct, because my consumption of electricity in the past, is between 90 and 112 units, per month. As per the manual bill issued to me, the total bill is Rs. 5114.63 less the amount paid by me Rs. 443.83 = Rs. 4669.80. The amount paid by me is around Rs. 2300/-during April 2011 to August, 2011, and I had shown the past bills to the concerned officials At MSEDC's Vasai Divisional Office, but the officials are not agree for their mistakes. I had paid the said bill for Rs. 4670/- 'under protest' at MSEDC's Vasai office, on 23/04/2012. I want the actual credit to be given to me for the payment made by me during April 2011 to August, 2011.