State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Post Master General (Pli) And ... vs Smt. Shobhabai W/O. Shreeram Giri on 7 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . Date of filing : 09.08.2005 Date of Order : 06.01.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 70 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: DHULE 1. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. ltd. (MSEB) Urban Division, Dhule. 2. Maharashtra State Elect. Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEB) Urban Sub Division, Dhule Appellants VERSUS Harilall Jagannath Chitte 12, Saptashrungi Colony, Dhule. Respondent Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv.
S.N. Tandale, for appellant Adv. Shi. Gajanan Mapari, for respondent ::
ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. Executive Engineer, MSEB Dhule, Division challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhule on 27.05.2005 in complaint case No. 70/2004.
2. The order under challenge is of canceling the bill of Rs. 1,20,210/- of electricity. By the said order District Forum also directed the appellant to adjust the amount of Rs.24,040/- which was deposited by the complainant in future bills. District Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- for cost.
3. Facts giving arise to this appeal are as under:-
Complainant Harilal Jagannath Chitte is resident of Saptshrungi Colony, Dhule. He has a meter bearing No. 9143676 and his consumer number is 0800/0392202. On 10.02.2004 it is alleged that, some workers from MSEB visited the house of the complainant in his absence and handled the meter. This fact came to his knowledge after returning to home. On 17.02.2004 he received information from police station that complaint u/s. 135, 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been filed against him at Cr.No.24/2004. On 20.02.2004 he received bill of Rs.
1,20,210/- was and his electricity connection was disconnected by the appellant. On 21.02.2004 he approached to appellant and requested to recover the amount by installment, accordingly 20% amount of Rs. 1,20,210/- deposited by him. At that time appellant compelled the complainant to make affidavit on stamp paper. He has no alternative but to give the undertaking. The said undertaking was given by the complainant under pressure. Thereafter, he approached to District Forum on 27.04.2004 by filing the complaint.
4. The present appellant appeared before the District Forum and submitted that, as per visit of flying squad it is found that, complainant committed theft of electricity by connecting one wire to cut out. The bill was given after calculating the units used by complainant which were not recorded in the meter. After calculating the amount bill was issued which was legal. Committing theft of electricity is a serious offence; accordingly criminal complaint was also filed against the complainant. Disconnection of electricity because of theft committed by complainant is proper.
5. After hearing both the parties District Forum cancelled the disputed bill.
6. Notices of final hearing of appeal were issued to both the parties. Adv. S.N. Tandale, appeared for appellant and Shi. Gajanan Mapari, appeared for respondent. Adv. Tandale submitted that as per flying squad report meter was found stopped and incoming was bye passed. No seal was found on the meter box. Complainant was found using extra load than the sanctioned load. Therefore bill issued was proper. He further submitted that, complainant admitted the theft and deposited 20% of the amount of disputed bill. It is contended by the appellant that, complainant affirmed on oath that the said bill is accepted and accordingly he is ready to deposit the bill. It is submitted by Adv. Tandale that after admitting the guilt and depositing the installment of the disputed bill complainant filed complaint with ulterior motive to avoid the payment of bill of electricity.
7. Adv.
Mapari for the respondent submitted that, officers of appellant visited the spot in the absence of complainant. The spot inspection report does not bear the signature of complainant. Panchnama conducted by appellant is not signed by any independent witness. Only officers and workers of MSEB signed the panchnama and spot inspection report. Undertaking by the complainant was taken under the threat of disconnection. Due to fear of disconnection complainant constrained to deposit 20% of the disputed bill amount. He further submitted that Dist. Forum rightly allowed the complaint by considering all the facts on record.
8. We considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. Spot inspection report is on record. It bears no signature of complainant. Even independent witness has not signed the said panchnama. No affidavit of the officer who conducted the inspection was filed in the Forum. Junior engineer of the MSEB calculated the amount which has to be received by the complainant after the charge of theft. Said amount is shown as Rs. 85,050/-. The flying squad visited the house of complainant on 17.02.2004. Immediately on 20.02.2004 bill was issued and supply was disconnected. The appellant violated principle of natural justice. Without giving any opportunity to the complainant about the said theft or bill amount supply was disconnected. It seems that as disconnection was done complainant was constrained to deposit the 20% amount and to give undertaking about the deposit of entire amount. Calculation of theft charges assessed was shown by Junior Engineer Rs. 85,050/-. But on 20.02.2004 bill of Rs. 1,20,210/- was issued to the complainant. There is a difference of calculation. As per Sec. 135 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list.. It seems that officers of MSEB did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sec.135. It is also apparent that appellant did not assess the provisional electricity charges and did not give opportunity to the consumer for hearing and then passed the final order of assessment. It is certain that without giving opportunity to the complainant final assessment bill was issued to him. Without following procedure laid down in Electricity Act the bill issued is illegal.
9. It also be mentioned that, in the Special case No. 139 of 2004 Shri. Arali, who prepared by assessment sheet, stated in his cross examination before Addl. Session Judge that, the assessment sheet prepared by him was false. In the facts and circumstances recorded above, we are dismissing the appeal by upholding the order of District Forum. Hence, the order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay Rs.1,000/- as a cost to the respondent.
3. Copy of order be furnished to the parties.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar