(Delivered on  30/03/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Appellant/O.P. – SND Limited  has preferred the   present appeal   feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23/09/2016 passed by the learned  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 411/2012, by which the complaint  filed  by the complainant came to be partly allowed. .

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under,

            Complainant – Mrs. Chanda Kokurde claims to be resident of Naik Nagar, Manewada Road, Nagpur. Complainant has alleged that  she  was running shop and had taken  electric connection  from the O.P. and  one electric meter was installed  having  Consumer No. 410016328085. The complainant  has further  alleged that  her shop was closed  from April 2010 to September  2011 but complainant  had paid electricity bills  despite the same.  However, the O.P. had issued  electric bill of Rs. 1880/- on  08/02/2011 and Rs. 2830/- on 27/07/2011 on the basis  of  average  consumption. The complainant  protested the bill  as shop  was closed and so the O.P. No. 2 issued  a corrected bill of Rs. 900/- on 06/08/2011. However, subsequently, the O.P. again included  an amount of Rs. 1930/- in the  fresh bill of September -2011. The complainant  has alleged  that her shop was closed  and so as per the rules  the O.P. was  entitled  to claim only Rs. 150/- per month. The O.P. has issued  a false and excessive  bill of Rs. 7400/- for the month of September 2011. The complainant then went to  the office of the O.P. and asked for  correction  of bill but no correction  was made and amount was not reduced which amounts  to Deficiency  in service. The complainant has further alleged that as per rules the electricity connection cannot be discontinued  without notice of 15 days  to the customer but the O.P. disconnected the electric supply without  prior notice to the complainant.  Complainant  therefore issued notice to the O.P. on 29/12/2012 through advocate  but  there was  no response from the O.P. The complainant therefore, suffered mental and physical harassment due to disconnection of electric supply and business of the complainant was adversely affected.  The complainant has also claimed that  she suffered loss in  business due to lack of electric supply from April-2012 to  08/05/2012 The complainant  has suffered monetory  loss   of Rs. 60,000/- for the period of two months. The complainant has claimed Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation and so the complaint.

3.         The O.P. appeared and resisted the complaint by filing reply. The O.P. has denied that the shop of the complainant was closed from April-2012 to May-2012. The O.P. has contended that there was no error in the assessment of Rs. 7,400/-. The O.P. has denied that no notice was issued to the complainant before disconnecting the electric supply. For the forgoing reasons the complaint is untenable in law and deserves to be dismissed.

4.         The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur went through the evidence  and documents  filed by the  complainant  on record as well as filed by the O.P. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur also went though the written notes of argument filed by the complainant and O.P. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur partly allowed the complaint and gave declaration that  electric bill dated 26/09/2011 for Rs. 7400/- was null  and void.  The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for  not supplying the  electricity  for the period of 14 months from 20/06/2012 to 24/08/2013. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur also directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 20,000/- by way of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost of litigation.  Against this order dated 23/09/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur the present appellant has come up in appeal.

5.         At the outset it is submitted by the learned advocate  on behalf of the appellant that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not properly  appreciated  the oral and documentary  evidence  in the proper  perspective and has  therefore reached  the findings learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur   which is  erroneous  in nature. Further  it is vehemently  submitted  by  the learned advocate  on behalf of the appellant  that  the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has not appreciated  the facts that the respondent / complainant  was not  at all  the Consumer  of electricity.  Mr. Sahare, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant has strongly rebutted submissions and contention and has supported the findings.  

6.         First we would like to dealt with aspect whether  the complainant / respondent  was the Consumer of the O.P. In this connection the learned advocate for the  respondent  has not  only  rebutted the contention  but has also pointed  out  certain documents  as well copies of  photographs  so as to show that  the complainant – Smt. Chanda Kokurde   was in fact running a shop. On this aspect the learned advocate for the  respondent /complainant  has drawn  our attention  also to various bills  to   show that  the  complainant /respondent  was running Vaishnavi Ladies Shoppe in the said  premises.  Further  the complainant  has also  placed  on record copies of electric bills which show that  the  complainant  was having  consumer No. 410016328085. From these documents it is amply clear that complainant – Smt. Chanda Kokurde was clearly a Consumer  as defined  under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 7.        It is further argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has passed an impugned order and granted relief which is not even claimed in the Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant.  According to the learned advocate for the appellant the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has granted compensation  to the complainant  for the period from 20/06/2012 to 24/08/2013 which was not claimed by the complainant.  Admittedly,  in the  present  case  the dispute  raised by the respondent /complainant  was not only regarding  excessive billing   regarding  consumption of electricity  but also  for claiming  electricity  charges for the  period  when  shop  of the complainant  was closed.  In this regard, we have also gone through the contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant. Firstly  the complainant  has raised  a grievance  that the O.P/appellant  had given  average bill  to the complainant  even though  the shop of the complainant  was closed. The complainant  has further  also raised  the grievance  that the O.P./appellant  had disconnected  the electric supply for the period from April - 2010 to 01/05/2012 and so the complainant  suffered  monetary loss  at the rate of 30,000/- per month. We have also gone through the documents placed on record by the complainant as well as findings given by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has given finding that bill dated 26/09/2011 for an amount of Rs. 7400/- issued to the complainant was unreasonable in nature.  On this aspect  we find that  the complainant  has placed on record  several documents  like bills to show that  the complainant  was running ladies shop in the same premises and  so the contention of the appellant  that there was no shop cannot be accepted.  The appellant has taken  a plea that merely from  the electric bills no interference  can be drawn  regarding  activity of the complainant  but this contention also  cannot be accepted for the reasons  which  we have already  stated  earlier.

8.         Next contention of the appellant is that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has wrongly given  findings  and wrongly awarded  compensation  of Rs. 30,000/- for the period from 20/06/2012 to 24/08/2013 which was  not at all claimed by the complainant.  We have carefully  gone through  the contents of the complaint  on this  aspect. It is quite true that  the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has granted  compensation  to the complainant  of Rs. 30,000/- but the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has  clearly  observed that the appellant /O.P. has disconnected the electric supply  without  any reason  for the period from 20/06/2012 to 24/08/2013 and so the complainant  was granted  compensation  on this count.  No doubt the complainant has not  specifically  pleaded for any relief regarding  this  period  from 20/06/2012 to 24/08/2013 but we are of the view that   the strict  Rules  of  pleading will not be applicable  to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is welfare  statute for Consumer.  Ongoing through the entire evidence adduced on record and finds  we find that  the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has elaborately  dealt  with  all the aspect and has arrived at findings which cannot be termed as perverse in nature. We therefore, do not find it necessary to interfere with the said findings. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that  the contentions  raised by the appellant in  the present  appeal cannot  be accepted and are not  in tenable  in law and so we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Appellant  to bear his own cost as well as cost of the respondent.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.