State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kondumal Premchand Kanjwani vs Spanco Nagpur Discom Ltd 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/12/16 (Arising out of Interim Order dtd. 13.04.2012 in Complaint No.CC/12/276 of District Forum, Nagpur) Kondumal Premchand Kanjwani R/o 165, Jaripatka Nagpur . Revisionist(s) Versus SPANCO Nagpur DISCOM Ltd Off. Narang Tower, Civil Lines 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. 13.04.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC/12/276, directing the complainant / revisionist to deposit the amount of Rs.2.50 Lac out disputed amount and to pay balance amount within one month, etc. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that:-
1. Complainant - Mr Kandumal / revisionist herein is a consumer of MSEDCL. Respondents M/s SPANCO Nagpur DISCOM Ltd is a franchisee of MSECDCL. It is alleged by the complainant / revisionist that respondent disconnected the electric supply and issued bill of Rs.4,47,790/- alleging theft of energy committed by that the revisionist / complainant by tampering the electric meter. Therefore, the revisionist / complainant filed the consumer complaint bearing No.CC/12/276 before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
2. By interim application dtd.12.04.2012 the revisionist claimed interim relief for restoration electricity supply.
3. On hearing Ld. Counsel for the complainant / revisionist the Forum granted ad-interim relief vide order dtd.13.04.212, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.2.50 Lacs and thereafter within one month balance bill amount. Further it is directed to respondent / o.p. to restore the electric supply, etc.
3. Feeling aggrieved by that order the complainant Kondumal filed this revision petition.
4. In response to the notice respondent / o.p. - SPANCO appeared and resisted the revision petition.
5. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the copy of complaint, copy of interim application dtd.12.04.2012 and copy of impugned ad-interim order dtd.13.04.2012.
6.
It is submitted by Adv. Mr S M Kasutre for the revisionist that the impugned ad-interim order passed by the Forum is not maintainable. According to him, there was no theft of electricity but the respondent has filed false case and issued electricity bill of excessive amount. Further he has submitted that the revisionist is being too old and his financial position is not sound, he is unable to deposit such amount of Rs.2.50 Lac, etc. On this ground, it is submitted to set aside the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Adv. Mr M S Vakil for the respondent SPANCO submitted that the revisionist has committed theft of electricity by tampering electric meter and therefore, the respondent was compelled to file police complaint against the revisionist / complainant with Special Police Station. The FIR also came to be issued by the Police. It is submitted that it being a theft case the revisionist is liable to pay the entire amount of bill in lump sum. It is submitted to dismiss the revision petition.
8. It is not disputed that on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent against the revisionist Police issued FIR against him and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, though the revisionist has not shown willingness to deposit the amount for getting interim relief for restoration of electricity supply, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order directing to deposit the amount Rs.2.50 Lac out of the bill amount of Rs.4,47,790/-. Therefore, we find no glaring infirmity or error in the impugned ad-interim order.
9. 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