This revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) has been filed by a consumer, questioning the correctness of order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the Maharashtra, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.08 of 2009.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Thane District Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navi Mumbai (for short, the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2008. By the said order the District Forum, while accepting the complaint, had inter- alia directed the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (for short “MSEDC”) to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.17,690/- recovered from him as reconnection charges for supply of electricity to his residential premises.
Since in our opinion, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed, (2013) 8 SCC 491, the complaint filed by the petitioner, challenging the demand raised by the respondent in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not maintainable, only a few salient facts, giving rise to the complaint, need to be noticed.
On 30.3.2007 at about 10:45 a.m. when the complainant was away to his office, an inspection of the electric meter installed outside his house was carried out by the officials of MSEDC. It was found that the meter was running at a slow speed and a red ‘wire loop’ to the current was found attached. The inspection was carried out in the presence of panchas and photograph was also taken. The meter was removed. The panchnama was also signed by the wife of the complainant. According to the complainant, in order to have the electricity restored and to avoid prosecution, he paid Rs.700/- as price of meter, Rs.200/- as reconnection charges, Rs.4,000/- as compounding fees and Rs.12,790/- as penalty for slow moving meter. After the installation of new meter, the petitioner made representation to the MSEDC for investigation into the matter and refund of the amount paid by him on 30.3.2007, on the ground that the meter reading as per the newly installed meter showed that the consumption patern for the subsequent period was the same as was being recorded in the old meter. Having failed to receive any positive response, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the MSDEC, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia praying for exhoneration from the allegation of power theft and refund of Rs.17,690/- paid by him on 30.3.2007 with interest @ 9% p.a. As noted above, the complaint was accepted by the District Forum and MSDEC was directed to refund the aforesaid amounts. Being aggrieved, MSDEC preferred appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the ratio of Anis Ahmed (supra)is not attracted on the facts of present case in as much as the grievance of the petitioner in the complaint was not to an assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act but to inaction on the part of MSEDC in not conducting a thorough probe into the allegation of theft leveled against him and thus, there was deficiency in service. It is argued that the petitioner had paid the aforesaid amounts under protest.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MSEDC, on the other hand, supported the decision of the State Commission and argued that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as the substratum of the complaint was the surprise inspection carried out at complainant’s premises when the meter was found to be running slow on account of tampering. According to the learned counsel, the said decision of Supreme Court is on all fours to the facts at hand. It was also urged that the compounding fee and other charges were paid by the petitioner voluntarily in order to avoid prosecution and therefore the complainant cannot be permitted to resile from his earlier stand.
Having perused the documents on record, including the inspection report and the bill raised by MSEDC under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, we are of the view that the present revision petition is bereft of any merit. While reversing the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has observed as follows:-
“In the circumstances, we are of the view that in this case when theft of electric energy was established and the meter was legally reconnected by the complainant by paying compounding fees and by paying penalty imposed by the MSEDCo. officials for reconnection of electric supply, there cannot be a consumer dispute alleging that the penalty recovered, compounding fee recovered was bad in law. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.”
The said observations of the State Commission, in our opinion are based on cogent material and therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anis Ahmed (supra), the complaint under the Act was not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting our interference.
The revision petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
