State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer,Maharashtra State ... vs Shri.Bhimrao Bhila Borse,Dist.Dhule. on 24 June, 2010
1 F.A.No.:1103/2005
Date of filing :22.06.2005
Date of order :24.062010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPEAL NO. :1103 OF 2005
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:134 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :DHULE.
1. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Board, Urban & Rural Division,
Sakri Road, Dhule.
2. Junior Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Board, Boris, Tq. & Dist.Dhule. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Opponents)
VERSUS
Shri.Bhimrao Bhila Borse,
R/o Boris, Dist.Dhule. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant)
CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for appellants, None for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by M.S.E.B. against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2005 in complaint case No. 134/04 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhule.
2. Respondent/Org.Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, he has taken electric supply for household purpose, his consumer 2 F.A.No.:1103/2005 number is 091450002556 and meter number is 9000164061. It is contended that he is regular in paying the bills. There is rift in between him and his brother Shamrao Borse who gave false information to the appellant. The Junior Engineer of the appellant checked the meter on 25.4.2003 and found meter is faulty. On 26.4.2003 he filed false complaint to the police station stating that complainant is using electric supply by direct connection for floor mill. Offence was registered at Songiri Police Station at crime No.22/2003 and bill for Rs.28,189.35 ps was issued to him. False report was prepared. It is contended that charge sheet was submitted before 5 th J.M.F.C. Dhule and after trial complaint is acquitted on 21.8.2004. It is contended that when meter was checked on 25.4.2003 the supply was through meter only for his household purpose. No direct supply was taken by-passing electric meter for floor mill. It is contended that on 6.5.2004 appellant disconnected the electric supply and removed the meter. Complainant was asked to visit the office on 7.5.2004 when he visited the office he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.28,189.35 ps. It is contended that floor mill was closed from 1999. Thus complainant approached the Forum for declaration of deficiency on the part of appellant and for declaration of act of removal of meter is illegal and directing appellant to restore the supply.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that on 25.4.2003 Sudhir Pethkar, Jr.Engineer of the appellant had visited the complainant`s house and inspected the meter & appliances. It was found that he is using electric supply by committing theft by making direct connection by-passing the meter for floor mill. Accordingly report was prepared which was signed by complainant`s son Vasant Bhimrao Borse. Appellant approached the police station by filing complaint. Complainant suppressed this fact and filed false complaint. Bill of theft assessing amount of Rs.28,189.35 ps. was issued to the complainant. It is contended that acquittal of complainant in criminal case will not help him to show 3 F.A.No.:1103/2005 that he did not commit the theft by making direct connection by- passing electric meter for floor mill.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed appellant to restore the supply immediately. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Dhule, M.S.E.D. came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondent. Learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale appeared on behalf of appellant, none appeared on behalf of respondent. Case was adjourned and notice was reissued to the respondent. Appellant was directed to serve the notice to respondent. Accordingly, appellant served the notice to respondent for hearing on 20.04.2010. Respondent did not appear on 20.4.2010 and case was adjourned to 24.06.2010. Today also none appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri.Tandale for appellant. Learned counsel Shri.Tandale pointed out that complainant does not dispute that Jr.Engineer Shri.Pethkar had visited the complainant`s house. He submitted that complainant`s son was present at the time of visit of Shri.Pethkar, Jr.Engineer. He also pointed out that Shri.Pethkar found that complainant is using electric supply by making direct connection by-passing electric meter for floor mill and was committing theft. He also submitted that affidavit of Shri.Sudhir Pethkar was produced before the Forum. Report of Shri.Sudhir Pethkar was also before Forum. Forum did not consider the facts. He submitted that acquittal in criminal case will not help the complainant to show that he did not commit theft of supply when evidence of Shri.Sudhir Pethkar, Jr.Engineer is on the record.
4 F.A.No.:1103/20057. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that complainant himself is not at dispute that Shri.Pethkar,Jr.Engineer had visited his house. Simply it is his contention that Shri.Pethkar found the meter is faulty and filed false criminal case. Report of Shri.Sudhir Pethkar is brought on record before the Forum. Report mentions that complainant had made direct connection by-passing electric meter for running floor mill. It is to be noted that report in question has been signed by Shri.Sudhir Pethkar and one more employee and Shri.Vasant Bhimrao Borse the son of complainant. No explanations have been given by complainant for putting the signature of his son on report in question. Further appellant also filed affidavit of Shri.Sudhir Pethkar who affirmed on oath, stating that whatever mentioned in the report is true and correct. He has also stated that the said report has been signed by son of complainant also. No cross examination of witness has been made on behalf of complainant. The Forum below did not consider this aspect. Only because complainant is acquitted in criminal case he will not get benefit of acquittal. In the criminal case the prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the instant case commission of theft can be proved by preponderance of probability. Report filed by appellant goes to show that complainant was found committing theft of electricity by making direct connection by-passing electric meter for running floor mill. Affidavit of Sudhir Pethkar was also before the Forum which corroborated the report. Forum below did not consider all these aspects and erred in allowing the complaint. We are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the Forum. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed.
5 F.A.No.:1103/2005
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh
Member Presiding Judicial Member.
Mane