Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/516

ANOOP CHAND MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ MPEB - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 13.02.2012 passed in C.C.No.78/2011 by District Forum, Gwalior)

 

ANOOPCHAND MITTAL,

S/O SHRI PADAMCHAND MITTAL,

R/O ARGADE KI GALI, LOHIA BAZAR,

LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                                            ….       APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

M.P.MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT

VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED,

THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

CITY CENTRAL DIVISION,

ROSHNI GHAR, LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                              ….       RESPONDENT.

   

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK   :          MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Sapna Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent.

                                   

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 03 .10. 2018)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal is by the complainant /appellant, against the order dated 13.02.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in C.C.No.78/2011, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained electricity connection no. 39435111-28-8-724488 from the opposite party.  On 08.06.2010, the employees of the opposite party tested the complainant’s electricity meter.  Upon testing the meter body seal was found intact and meter was inside the box, only date and time was display was not there.  But the opposite party prepared panchnama on the spot and issued provisional assessment order dated 05.10.2010 for Rs.55,527/- in the name of the complainant.  The complainant raised objection regarding the same but his bill was not quashed.  However, his neighbour’s bill (which was raised for a meter with no proper display of date and time) was quashed.  The complainant’s meter was replaced by the opposite party on 29.07.2010 but it was

 

-2-

showing exorbitant electricity consumption. The replaced meter was defective and the complainant prayed for retesting of the meter and amendment in the bills raised.

3.                The complainant subsequently filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on opposite party’s part.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that during meter inspection, three meters were found in the complainant’s premises, with the facility of change over among them.  The load could be used in any of those meters.  In meter testing laboratory, RTC of the said meter was found defective and therefore, the meter was observed to be defective.  Therefore, an average billing from September-2009 to November-2009 was done, on the basis of which bills from December-2009 to May-2010 were issued to the complainant.  Upon spot inspection, panchnama was prepared which bears signatures of the complainant’s representative and provisional assessment order was raised, in accordance with law. The complainant’s neighbour’s meter was found to be functioning properly, during investigation in laboratory.  The complainant has not complained regarding defect in the replaced meter in the Department, and therefore, his allegations are baseless.

4.                The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the panchnama was prepared in the complainant’s representative’s presence and since there were three meters in the complainant’s premises, with a facility of change over, the provisional assessment order cannot be termed unlawful.  Further the complainant has not placed any evidence which could suggest that he had complained regarding alleged defective functioning of the replaced meter, in the Department and had deposited requisite meter testing charges for the same.  Hence this appeal..

5.                Heard learned counsels for the parties.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant/appellant argued that the electricity meter installed in the complainant’s premises was found OK, only date and time display was not found in the said meter.  Therefore, the provisional assessment order is not in accordance with law.  He had raised objection regarding the same but the

-3-

demand raised by the opposite party was not quashed, whereas on the objection of his neighbour, (whose meter was also not showing date and time display), bill amount demanded from him, was quashed.  The replaced meter which is installed in the complainant’s/appellant’s premises is defective but the District Forum has been erroneous in ignoring the contentions and has dismissed the complaint without considering the facts.

7.                Learned counsel for opposite party/respondent argued that once the spot inspection panchnama under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is prepared and provisional assessment order under Section 126/135 is issued, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaints filed in this regard. Panchnama under Section 126 is prepared in presence of complainant’s representative and consequently provisional assessment order is passed. If the complainant is not satisfied, he can approach the appellate authority in the above regard.

8.                I observe that a panchnama, is prepared in the presence of complainant’s representative and subsequently a provisional assessment order for Rs.55,527/- was issued in the name of the complainant/appellant.  The opposite party/respondent has observed that during inspection, the meter was found defective.  The complainant had raised an objection against this, which the opposite party dismissed holding that the bill raised is payable, since the meter installed in the complainant’s premises was found to be defective.  The meter testing report of the electricity meter installed in the complainant’s premises reveals that RTC of the meter was found defective.  The opposite party has stated that the three meters were found in the complainant’s premises with facility of change over.  Further I observe that the complainant has placed no evidence on record which could suggest that the replaced meter was defective and he had given  requisite meter testing charges regarding testing of the same. 

9.                The District Forum has nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint. In this light, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U. P. Power

-4-

Corporation Limited & Ors Vs Anis Ahmed III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that the complaints filed against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 and against the offence committed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

10.               In view of the above and after considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the opposite party cannot be held accountable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.                           

                                                                          (DR. MRS MONIKA MALIK)

                                                                                               MEMBER