State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Knk Thampan Panickar And Anr. vs Mahanagar Gas Limited Through Its ... on 10 April, 2026
1 RP/25/91
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/25/91
(Against the Order dated 12/09/2025 passed in application dt. 24/05/2025 passed by the District
Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban)
Mr. KNK Thampan Panickar
Smt. Vijaya Thampan Panickar,
105, Dheeraj Valley Tower CHSL, Mohan
Gokhale Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai - 400063. ........ Revision Petitioner/Org.
Complainant
Vs.
Mahanagar Gas Ltd., (Thro Its M.D.)
Pay and Accounts Building, Near Family Court,
Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400051. ....... Respondent / Org.
Opponent
BEFORE:
Justice S. P.Tavade - Hon'ble President
Vijay C. Premchandani - Hon'ble Member
Appearance: - For the Petitioner(s): Adv. Panickar
For Respondent: Adv. Warunjikar, Adv. Kharkar
ORDER
(10/04/2026)
Per Hon'ble Shri. Vijay C. Premchandani - Member
1. The present Revision Petition has filed under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 12/09/2025 passed in application dt. 24/05/2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban in original Complaint no. CC/135/2016.
2. It is contended in the application that, Hon'ble District Commission was pleased to allow the interim application of the present original Complainant not to disconnect the gas connection of the Complainant and 2 RP/25/91 directions were given to Opponent. In spite of that the Opponent was used to charge the bills by way of issuing SMS containing CA number in the physical and online bills from January 2023 to March 2024. It is further contended that, the Opponent was not obeyed the interim order therefore, the present consumer has filed application under Section 188 and 193 of I.P.C against the Opponent in original complaint praying for issuance of notice in the aforesaid alleged sections. He moved an application just to produce Revision Petition in page no 27 where subsequently; the District Commission has passed an interim order dated 24/05/2023. In the said order the District Commission has rejected the application. Being aggrieved with the said order the present Revision Petition has filed by the Petitioner on following grounds -
GROUNDS
3. The basic nature and object of the consumer complaint was relief against the excessive bills due to voluminous leakage of gas as a result of faulty workmanship while installing a gas geyser. Inflating these already excessive bills by incorrect and arbitrary billing has further aggravated and continuously swelled the existant excess bill.
4. Ignoring this arbitrary inflation of bills will set-off / negate the original excess billing even if the judgment comes in favour of the Complainant. The consumer complaint will be rendered meaningless by such erroneous and fabricated billing.
5. The impugned order had lost sight of the following in the impugned order.
A. Para 2, 3 & 5: In all these paragraphs the Ld. District Forum has incorrectly observed that physical bills did not match with the SMS. The Ld. District Forum completely lost sight of online bills and focused only on SMS.
3 RP/25/91 B. Para 6: The Ld. District Commission has incorrectly observed that plain perusal of the SMS does not show the receiver of the message. It further observed that no other cogent evidence is produced to compare SMS with physical bills. However, the Ld. District Forum lost sight that the SMS contains the CA No. 210000410684. This CA no. matches the CA no. in the physical & online bills for January 2023, March 2023.
C. Further the Ld. District Commission observed incorrectly that "By no stretch of imagination it can be gathered that said SMS is received by the complainant." It lost sight of the fact that in a SMS only the name of the sender is shown in mobile screen and the receiver is always the holder of the SIM (Subscriber Identification Module). Since the print is provided by the complainant, the complainant is the de facto receiver.
D. Para 6 section 188: The Ld. District Forum has reproduced the extract of section 188. It misconceived it own extract wherein it is stated to abstain from certain act .... or to take certain order with certain property under the management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause of structure annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction and no answer injury to any persons lawfully employed.
E. Para 8: Section 193 is with regard to false evidence by party; therefore, burden is upon the complainant to prove false nature of evidence, which the complainant has failed to do. So, section 193 cannot be invoked in present proceedings. Here too the Ld. District Forum lost sight of the fact that Complainant had produced a copy of the online bills and physical bills for January and March 2023 as evidence clearly showing the difference in bills for the same corresponding months as well as the not accounting for payment received and adding excess amounts each month, this inflating the bills.
4 RP/25/91 F. Further, the Ld. District Forum did not address the issue of excess amount carried forward without accounting for the payments made which is clearly shown in para 6 of the application in tabular format.
G. Four issues of discrepancies in billing were raised; the Ld. District Forum only focused on SMS and physical bills of ignoring the following as described in para 8 of the application;
i. Does not show or adjust the amount received against the previous bill;
ii. Does not give the breakup of arrears from the previous bill; iii. Physical and online bills do not tally;
iv. other users receive bill in a different form;
6. The only reasons given by the Respondent is that they issue automated bills perhaps hinting that due to this they cannot accommodate the order of Ld. District Commission dt. 05/04/2025. However, such an excuse cannot be used to take advantage of their own wrong or limitations in their system to adjust or correct the bills. Such a claim allows the Respondent to take advantage of their own wrong.
7. The Ld. District Commission has not considered prayer clause B, C and D which are the main subject matter of the application titled "APPLICATION TO DIRECT OPPONENT NO 1 TO ISSUE PROPER BILLS"
8. The Ld. District Commission in para 8 of its order has observed as follows Section 193 is with regard to false evidence by a party; therefore, burden is upon the complainant / applicant to prove the false nature of evidence, which complainant has failed to do so.
The Ld. District Commission lost sight that the prayer in the application was merely to issue show cause notice and not to prosecute them. After the issuance 5 RP/25/91 of show cause notice, the Complainant would have led evidence. Even otherwise the Complainant had produced the online and physical bills and corresponding SMS.
9. The Ld. District Commission has misconceived that multiple prayers cannot be sought by a single application. Even if that were so, by the own findings and observations of the District Commission, the Ld. District Commission first examined the merits of evidence of bills and thereafter, makes this contradictory observation / finding.
10. The Revision Petitioner has prayed that the impugned order passed in the MA/42/2016 may be rectify reflecting clearly payment made by the Consumer without any interest or other charges in violation of the order dated 05/04/2016 of the District Commission. He also prayed for removing all charges and interest applied even though regular payment is made as per order dated 01/04/2016. Further he prayed for adjusting bills and also issue Show Cause Notice as to why action should not be taken under Section 193 of IPC for inflating bills to extort inflated amounts from consumers.
11. Heard the arguments at the time of admission of Petition and notice was issued to Respondent. The Respondent appeared before this Commission and matter was adjourned for filing reply of Respondent. It is contended by the Respondent that, an Execution Application is already filed by the Revision Petitioner before the District Commission for compliance of the order and the process has been already issued against the Respondent.
12. Today we heard both the sides. The Respondent has not filed reply. The Petitioner has contended that there is a disobedience of the order by the Opponent and repeatedly the bills were charged to the consumer. Therefore, the application is rightly preferred by the present Petitioner under Section 188 and 193 of IPC for disobedience to an order lawful promulgated by public servant, giving or fabrication false evidence in a judicial proceedings, the such act committed by the Respondent by issuing inflated bills to the present Petitioner. It is further contended by the present Petitioner that, the said application is not 6 RP/25/91 properly dealt by the District Consumer Commission and wrongly passed an order. Therefore, the present Petition is preferred by the Petitioner and the revision petition may be allowed in terms of prayers made in the prayer clause.
13. The Respondent contended in the arguments that the interim application was allowed to the extent not to disconnect the gas connection of original complainant. The said order is obeyed in spite of that, for disobedience of the order the present Petitioner has preferred execution application before District Consumer Commission and the District Commission has issued process against the present Respondent. It is further contended by the Respondent that, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides special statute to the parties for non- compliance of the order if any, remedy available under section 71 and 72. The execution application for non-compliances of the order is filed by the Petitioner before Ld. District Consumer Commission, which is pending and yet to be decided. It is further contended by the Respondent advocate, that the alleged application is rightly dealt by the Ld. District Consumer Commission by rejecting the application filed under section 188 and 193 of IPC by issuing notice to the Opponent.
14. Heard both the parties, perused the record. It shows that Section 188 is pertaining to the disobedience of the order lawfully passed by Public Servant for disobedience or injury to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both and under the Section 193 provided for filing fabricated false evidence in the judicial proceeding. The original consumer complaint is still pending and the execution proceeding is yet to be decided, the consumer case evidence filed is yet to be assessed. Therefore, primarily section 188 and 193 is not applicable. Further Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides special statute pertaining to non- compliance and disobedience of order passed by the District Commission under section 71 and 72 then section 188 of IPC will not be come into picture. The said aspect in the impugned order has been discussed already by the Ld. District Consumer 7 RP/25/91 Commission while passing the order dated 24/05/2023. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that there is no error on the part of Ld. District Consumer Commission by rejecting the application pertaining to the issuance of notice under Section 188 and 193 of IPC for disobedience of order against Respondent. Therefore, in our view, and discussion herein above we inclined to pass the following order;
ORDER
1) Revision Petition is rejected.
2) No cost is imposed.
3) If any further order is earlier passed in the applications, in view of the rejection of application, has been rejected.
4) Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Vijay C. Premchandani] Member gp