CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 1167 OF 2007 Date of filing : 18/09/2007

@ MISC. APPL. NO. 1621 OF 2007 Date of order : 19/05/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 35 OF 2007

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : RAIGAD



M.M. Barve

Sector-17, Type-PL6/8/4

New Panvel – 410217. … Appellant/org. complainant

V/s.

Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Company Ltd.

Division Office at Tappal Naka,

Old Panvel. … Respondent/org. O.P.


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

Present: Appellant Mr.M.M. Barve in person.

Mr.S.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent.

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

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19/07/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.35/2007 M.M. Barve V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. decided by District Consumer Forum Raigad (in short ‘Forum below’). Consumer complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that energy connection, which stood in the name of Neeta M. Parvate was not changed in his name though application was given. Energy bills were given not as per actual consumption and the power cable giving energy connection to their building was left open after damaged cable was changed due to flood water. Forum below found that all the alleged deficiencies were met by the respondent/O.P. but there is delay in fulfilling the same and therefore, it awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/-. Unsatisfied thereby, org. complainant has preferred this appeal. As it appears, org. O.P. did not file any appeal.

We heard appellant/org. complainant Mr.M.M. Barve in person and Mr.S.B. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the papers.

The issue as to locus standi of the complainant to file this consumer complaint, we prefer not to deal with it since now we are told that energy meter stands transferred in his name and he is a consumer and proceed to decide with application for condonation of delay as well as this appeal accordingly.

There is delay of 4 days in filing appeal. It caused since complainant was bonafidely pursuing a wrong remedy of recalling or review of order before the Forum below. Delay being unintentional and satisfactorily explained, we condone the delay and allow Misc. Appl. No.1621/2007 accordingly.

Since, the alleged deficiencies in service were attended and removed, Forum below rightly held accordingly. As far as expected services from respondent/O.P. are concerned, the directions to ensure the same cannot be given particularly about efficiency expected to be shown by them. They have already taken necessary precautions to bring more transparency while issuing energy bills by inserting photo of the meter reading.

General relief in the nature to improve service to issue correct bills showing correct meter reading, etc. cannot be granted as held by the National Commission in the matter of Kongra Ananth Ram V/s. Telecom District Manager, 1986-94 Consumer 274 (NC&SC).

Forum below has awarded compensation to appellant/org. complainant to the extent of Rs.3,000/- for delay in attending his complaints. We find amount of compensation awarded is reasonable and does not require any interference. Thus, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Misc. Appl. No.1621/2007 for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

2. Appeal stands dismissed.

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

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





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

Member Presiding Judicial Member