CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 772 OF 1999 Date of filing : 23/04/1999

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 327 OF 1994 Date of order : 20/07/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOLAPUR



Executive Engineer (U)

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,

Old Mill Compound, Murarjee Peth,

Solapur. … Appellant/org. O.P.

V/s.

Shivappa Basappa Rakate

R/o. 127 Laxmi Chawl, Solapur. … Respondent/org. complainant


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.S.S. Kalekar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/03/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.3271994 Shri Shivappa Basappa Rakate V/s. Executive Engineer (U), M.S.E.B. Solapur by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘Forum below’ in short). It was a case of excess billing and the complaint was allowed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P./M.S.E.B. preferred this appeal.

We heard Mr.S.S. Kalekar, Advocate for the appellant/M.S.E.B. and Mr.Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant.

In the instant case, admittedly, electric meter was installed at the house of the complainant. Billing was made as per the actual consumption. When the complaint was made about excess billing, initially one meter was replaced in the month of March 1993. When the complaints continued, the meter was put on test with the standard meter and it was found that there was no fault with the energy meter. Under the circumstances, complainant’s grievance of excess billing fails. It is observed by the Forum below that O.P. themselves ought to have referred the dispute to the Electric Inspector as per the statutory provisions and holding non-reference thereof as deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Law is otherwise. We find Forum below on wrong parameters arrived at a wrong conclusion. The impugned order/award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order/award dated 23/03/1999 is set aside. In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

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





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member