(Delivered on 21/11/2016)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.      This appeal is  preferred  against the impugned judgment and award  dated 25/05/2004 in consumer complaint  No. 106/2003 decided by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chandrapur whereby learned  Forum awarded that  the appellant (O.P.) shall  repair the defective electricity meter or replace the same with new meter upon accepting  charges payable  for the same according  the rules.  It is further awarded that  the bill shall be issued  on average  basis with effect from 09/08/2001 till the decision of the complaint  for average of 198 units per month preparing the same accordingly and  shall refund  additional  amount recovered from the complainant  with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Compensation  was also awarded  in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and litigation  cost in the sum of Rs. 500/-.

2.      Appellant  chose to file the appeal  against the aforesaid  award  in question challenging  Jurisdiction  of the  learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum  to pass an award for repairing the existing meter or  to replace the meter with new meter without  any charges as awarded and to issue bill on the average basis  at 198 units per month. The appellant  also questioned the   grant of  compensation and cost.

3.      We have perused  the written notes of argument  submitted in support of appeal on behalf of  the appellant.  We are not impressed by the submission  that the  learned District Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum  below had  no jurisdiction  to entertain and decide the complaint. In our view it is a case of  consumer dispute  whereby  the  complainant as a consumer  had raised grievance  regarding  excessive bills issued  by the appellant (O.P.) and excessive charges   levied including  10% increase in average charges.

4.      According to the learned advocate  for the appellant  there was no justification  at all in any rule of the appellant  to  claim 10% increase on an average. Further  according to the appellant , the  consumption  of the meter was  more than 198 units per month and complainant  had  consumed 1387 units in the month of May  and July-2000 and bills were paid  without  raising  written  protest.  According to the appellant  the  bills were not  for  exorbitant charges.

5.      As against the above  submission   the learned advocate of the respondent  contended that  the  learned Forum has rightly  considered as to  what was the load of the meter in the  impugned judgment  which was  mentioned  as  two fans, two tube light,  one fridge, one T.V. and one bell. Accordingly it fixed as to how the bill ought to have been issued on the basis on average user 198 units per month.  It also appears that the learned Forum considered the relevant rules in the electricity  supply and history of  previous  charges levied  for user of the meter. In our view  it is  duty of the appellant  to  supervise the meter from time to time  to ensure that  it is kept in working  order or in proper  repaired condition  and in  the event it is found that  meter is not correctly working  and cannot be repaired. It is duty of the appellant   to replace the same by new meter in  proper working condition.  For that purpose  it is open  for the appellant  to  charge  reasonable sum  in accordance of the rule and to replace  the meter if   found in defective  condition. The charges could not have been  levied  exorbitantly as was done in this case. The appellant  had charged 396 units  for two months  in respect of bills  which were issued bimonthly on 09/08/2001, 09/10/2001 and 11/12/2001 despite making remark that meter was defective. Unilaterally the  excessive charges were levied  for  217.5 units per month accordingly charging on the basis  of 525 units on an average despite remark “meter was defective” and  excessive charges were levied payable by the complainant.  When the complaint was made the O.P.  insisting upon the complainant to meet  the Junior Engineer for change in the electric meter as  appellant  was insisting for demand  note   for sum of Rs. 1000/- and even thereafter for  one and quarter  year no steps were taken  for  do the needfull. The stand taken that  average user can be increased at the rate of  10%  after every six month  is unreasonable.  For the reason  therefore, the learned District Consumer Forum having considered the  relevant relief  for the electric supply, terms and condition  and charges levied rightly awarded passing order that  the  appellant shall   replace old meter by new meter in good condition  or repair old meter at the choice of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of  the case compensation  awarded  is just and reasonable. Hence, we do not find any  valid ground  to interfere  with the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is therefore  dismissed with cost. Cost of litigation  is fixed at the rate of 5,000/- payable  by the appellant to the complainant.  Appeal is dismissed with cost accordingly.