Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1321

M.P.RAJYA VIDYUT MANDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIVPRASAD - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 13.06.2013 passed in C.C.No.94/2010 by District Forum, Betul)

 

PRESIDENT, M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.                                      …          APPELLANTS

 

Versus

                   

SHIVPRASAD PAWAR.                                                                                             …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR.  MRS MONIKA MALIK                           :      MEMBER                                  

 

                                      O R D E R

08.05.2019

          Ms. Indira Shukla learned counsel for the appellants.

            Shri M. K. Pandagare, learned counsel for the respondent.

                       

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Betul (for short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.94/2010 whereby the Forum while holding the appellant to be deficient in service has directed the appellants/opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with interest @ 7% p.a. from 24.09.2010 to the respondent/complainant and has directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

2.                According to learned counsel for appellant the directions to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony is on much higher side.  The complainant claimed Rs.2,000/- towards cost but the Forum while passing the impugned order awarded Rs.5,000/- which is not claimed.

3.                On the other hand learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the award of compensation and costs is justified and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order.

4.                Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5.                Undisputedly, as is clear from the impugned order an exorbitant bill of Rs. 22,326/-without getting the meter reading done was issued by the appellant to the respondent. The complainant had to deposit the same to avoid disconnection. However, the said excessive bill amount was subsequently adjusted in the next bills

-2-

and this fact finds place in the affidavit filed by the sub-engineer of the appellant. Thus the finding recorded by the Forum to the aforesaid extent holding that due to deficiency in service the complainant suffered mental agony appears to be just and proper. We find that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Forum towards mental agony cannot be said to be unjust or exorbitant warranting interference in the same.  However, as regards cost amount, we deem it appropriate to reduce the same to Rs.2,000/-. 

6.                We accordingly maintain the impugned order directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- with interest as per the order of the Forum to the respondent towards mental agony but instead of Rs.5,000/- towards cost, Rs.2,000/- will be payable to the complainant/respondent.

7.                With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.

 

              (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                 (Dr. Monika Malik)             

                            President                                            Member