State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Spanco Discom Ltd vs Kondumal Premchand Kanjwani on 13 June, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 Revision Petition No. RP/12/14 (Arising out of Interim Order dtd. 21.04.2012 in Complaint No.CC/12/276 of District Forum, Nagpur) SPANCO Discom Ltd Through its Manager (Vigilance) Tulsibag, Mahal Nagpur. . Revisionist(s) Versus Kondumal Premchand Kanjwani R/o 165, Jaripatka Nagpur .Respondent(s) BEFORE: Honble Mr S. M. Shembole, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal, Member Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr S M Kasture ..for the Revisionist Adv. Mr M S Vakil .....for the Respondent JUDGEMENT
(Passed on 13.06.2012) Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member This revision is directed against the ad-interim order dtd. 21.04.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC/12/276, directing the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.1.00 Lac out of disputed amount and to pay balance amount within one month, etc. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that:-
1. Revisionists M/s SPANCO Discom Ltd is a franchisee of MSEDCL. Respondent Mr Kandumal is a consumer of MSEDCL. It is alleged by the revisionist that the respondent committed theft of energy by tampering the electric meter and therefore, FIR is lodged against the respondent with Special Police Station, Nagpur and issued bill of Rs.4,47,790/-. Thereafter, the respondent filed the consumer complaint bearing No.CC/12/276 before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. On 12.04.2012 respondent claimed interim relief for restoration electricity supply.
2. On hearing the Ld. Counsel for the respondent / complainant by order dtd.13.04.2012, District Consumer Forum, Nagpur passed an ad-interim order, directing the respondent / complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.2.50 Lacs and thereafter within one month balance bill amount. Further it is directed to revisionist / o.p.
to restore the electric supply. Show cause notice was issued to the revisionist.
3. In the meanwhile by application dtd.20.04.2012, the respondent complainant claimed instalments to deposit the amount of Rs.2.50 Lacs so as to comply ad-interim order.
4. This application is resisted by the revisionist by giving written say contending inter-alia that the complainant is liable to pay entire amount as it is a theft case and further it is averred that the District Consumer Forum, cannot review its own order for granting instalments, etc.
5. On hearing both the sides, the Forum passed the impugned order dtd.21.04.2012, directing the complainant / respondent to deposit Rs.1.00 Lac and thereafter balance amount within one month.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that order the o.p. SPANCO filed this revision petition.
7. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the copies of impugned order as well as copies of applications dtd.12.04.2012 and 20.04.2012.
8. It is not disputed that the revisionist has made complaint with Police against the respondent / complainant, alleging that the respondent has committed theft of electricity by tampering electric meter and issued the energy bill of Rs.4,47,790/-. Thereafter, on hearing both the sides, the Forum has passed an ad-interim order, directing the complainant / respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.1.00 Lac and thereafter balance amount within one month.
9. It is submitted by Adv. Mr M S Vakil, for the revisionist that since it is a theft case, the complaint itself is not maintainable and further respondent is liable to pay the entire amount of bill. According to him, the complainant is not entitled to claim instalments but the Forum without considering this legal position, erred in granting ad-interim relief and further instalments as prayed by the complainant / respondent. In short, according to him, ad-interim impugned order is not at all sustainable.
10. Per contra, Mr Kasture, Ld. Counsel for the respondent / complainant submitted that the complainant is being too old person and his financial position is not sound, he is unable to pay the bill amount in lump sum and therefore, considering all these facts, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has rightly passed the impugned order, granting instalments, etc. He has submitted to dismiss the revision petition.
11. True it is that the amount, in question, is being pertaining to the theft case, complainant / respondent is liable to pay entire amount. The maintainability of the consumer complaint filed by the respondent cannot be considered at this stage. In our view, though the respondent is liable to pay entire bill amount, it cannot be disputed that the Forum has its discretion in granting instalments, considering the financial position of the respondent / complainant. Therefore, we find no glaring infirmity or error in the impugned ad-interim order.
13. In the result, this revision petition is being devoid of any merit, liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER i. Revision Petition stands dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties.
[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj