State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajratna Milk Products Pvt.Ltd. vs Assistant Engineer M.S.E.B. & Ors. on 1 February, 2012
A-190/2005
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/04/119
1. RAJRATNA MILK
PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.
A4, MIDC,
TEMBHURNI-413208. THROUGHT ITS DIRECTOR SHRI RAVINDRA SAMPATRAO SHINDE
R/O NIMGAON TAL MADHA DIST
SOLAPUR
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER
M.S.E.B.
SUB DIVISION,
KURUDWADI, TAL SOLAPUR.
2. SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER
(S.U.R.C.) M.S.E.B. O
& M CIRCLE OFFICIAL URJANAGAR,MORARJI PETH,SOLAPUR
3. MAHARASHTRA STATE
,ELECTRICITY BOARD,
PRAKASHGAD,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode
PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Sandeep Salunkhe, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the opponents.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint was filed on 25/04/2004. It is a grievance of the complainant-Company that it has a business of Milk Chilling Plants and for that purpose, energy connection was taken from the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB in short). On 19/04/2001 the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant got burnt due to excessive load. It was replaced on 25/08/2001. However, replaced meter was also got burnt due to excessive load on 13/09/2001.
Thereafter, as stated in the complaint, additional load was sanctioned to the complainant, but was never released. Thereafter, on 25/10/2002 consequent to the raid on the premises and finding that a theft of electricity was committed, a criminal prosecution was lodged against the complainant for theft of electricity. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant had paid `6,05,746/- towards the provisional bill and only thereafter, meter was installed and supply was reconnected as High Tension consumer. It is further alleged that the erstwhile MSEB illegally disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant for the period 13/09/2001 to 22/06/2003.
He raised a dispute about the energy bills alleging that they represent excessive charging, but in the consumer complaint, no particulars of those bills which according to him are excessive, are mentioned or given. It is further alleged that the complainant-company was closed for the period 25/10/2002 to 22/06/2003 but the bills were issued on average basis at the rate of 13152 units of consumption per month and therefore, for eight months against the total consumption recorded on average basis of 105216, complainants estimated profit of `94/- per unit in the said business and therefore, alleging that in effect he had suffered a loss of `98,90,304/-, and claimed compensation accordingly in this consumer complaint. Following prayers are made while filing consumer complaint :-
(a) Record and proceeding be called form the opponent in respect of subject matter.
(b) On perusal of the Record and proceeding, this Honble Court be pleased to held that the opponent MSEB has committed various illegalities thereby held guilty for the deficiency in services.
(c) This Honble Court be pleased to direct the opponent MSEB to pay the compensation of `98,90,304/- with interest to the complainant.
(d) Cost of the present complaint of rupees ten thousand be kindly paid to the complainant.
(e) Any other & further relief which this Honble Court deem fit & Proper be passed.
2. Advocate Mr.Sandeep Salunkhe present for the complainant and Advocate Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale appeared for the opponent/MSEB. He undertakes to file Vakalatnama. After arguing the matter for some time, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant sought an adjournment. He was asking for time in the morning session when we were about to rise for recess and at that time also we told him that it is a kept back matter and an old matter and we will attend to it in the afternoon session. In the afternoon session, again he requested for adjournment in the above referred circumstances, but we find it not proper considering the circumstances of this particular case to adjourn the same. Thereafter, when we asked him to make additional submissions, if any, he told us that the facts stated above be recorded and we can proceed with passing the order. We disapprove such course adopted by the Learned Counsel.
3. In the instant case, since, there is allegation of theft, any dispute relating to it, particularly, in respect of payment of any charges viz. civil component by way of composition (of the offence), no consumer complaint can be entertained.
4. At the second instant, as earlier recounted, if there is a grievance relating to the alleged deficiency in service against erstwhile MSEB in respect of issuance of bills, charging excessive, then in a complaint, not a single bill is pointed out. Mere vague statement of excessive bill is not enough. Therefore, such complaint cannot be entertained.
5. Apart from that the erstwhile MSEB is non-est, no more in existence. Assistant Engineer of erstwhile MSEB i.e. opponent No.1 and Superintendent Engineer of erstwhile MSEB i.e. opponent No.2 are separate, distinct and independent jurisdic persons than the Company they represent. They are also not named.
There are no allegations against them of either adopting oppressive tactics or maliciously and/or mischievously acting while disconnecting the electricity supply or issuing the bills. Therefore, in view of observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243-AIR 1994 Sc 787, there being no allegations against them of deficiency in service, the consumer complaint against them cannot be entertained. Opponent No.3/MSEB is non-est Company as on today. Therefore, no complaint can lie against it.
6. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the complaint. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint is not admitted and stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 1st February 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd