State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Shreejidham Hotels & Resorts ... vs Superindent Engineer Zone ... on 16 February, 2021
RP/21/01 1/6
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
REVISION PETITION NO.RP/21/01
(Arisen out of order dated 30/12/2020 in Complaint Case No.397/2020 by District
Commission, Nashik)
M/s.SHREEJIDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,
Through Director Mr.Sahil Gilani,
Hotel 24 Seven, Bhabha Nagar,
Behind Wasan Eye Care,
Mumbai Naka Link Road, .......Petitioner(s)
Nashik - 422 001. (Org.Complainant)
Versus
1. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINNER
ZONE OFFICE, MSEDCL,
Bytco Point, Nashik Road,
2. NODAL OFFICER, .....Respondent(s)/
Nashik Zone . (Org.Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
Dr.S.K. Kakade - Presiding Member
ORDER
1. This Revision Petition is filed by original complainant against the order passed in Consumer Case No.397/2020 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nashik. Ld.District Commission passed the conditional interim stay order in the said complaint on 30th December, 2020 and ordered the Complainant to pay Rs.27,57,618/-, which is 60% of the extra bill that was charged by the respondent, i.e. MSEDCL. By this Revision Petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the interim order passed by the Ld.District Commission granting conditional stay.
2. The Revision Petitioner is Director of M/s.Shreejidham Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., who used services of the respondents to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. The respondent issued RP/21/01 2/6 supplementary bill to the Revision Petitioner/Complainant of Rs.45,96,030/- dated 26/12/2019 on account of wrongly charging from the year 2015 after new meter was installed by respondent. The respondent billed the petitioner/original complainant on MF-1 factor instead of MF-2 factor as it was explained by respondent while issuing supplementary bill. Revision Petitioner aggrieved by this supplementary bill approached Grievance Cell of MSEDCL where stay was granted after payment of Rs.1,59,034/- by order dated 03/07/2020. But, the Grievance Cell did not give any further relief to the Revision Petitioner.
3. Revision Petitioner, hence, approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nashik and filed Consumer Complaint No.397 of 2020 and prayed for stay to the supplementary bill issued by the respondent. Conditional stay was granted by the Ld.District Commission vide order dated 30th December, 2020 directing the complainant to pay 60% of the amount of the supplementary bill. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant approached this Commission by filing this Revision Petition before the Commission.
4. This Revision Petition was heard on 27th January, 2021 and on 10th February, 2021. Ld.Advocate Mr.Uday Wavikar for petitioner submitted that the supplementary bill was suddenly issued by respondent - MSEDCL after four years of changing the meter from 2015 to 2020. The officer of respondent did not notice the change in billing criteria. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner is regularly paying the electricity bill on monthly basis, but it is difficult to pay the suddenly issued excessive supplementary bill which arose due to negligence of the employees of the respondent. Due to Corona/lockdown period the income from the hotel has come down and it is difficult to pay this suddenly issued excessive bill. Ld.Advocate for petitioner further submitted that the mistake of the employees of the respondent Company came to light after RP/21/01 3/6 four years. Due to mistake of the employee issuing suddenly high supplementary bill is unfair trade practice, rather, it is atrocity against the revision petitioner/complainant. He also submitted that, since this complaint was contested by respondent before the District Commission, it was also not challenged by respondent. He further prayed that the revision petitioner/complainant is willing to pay just and reasonable amount on the basis of the instalments and the huge, disputed amount is not acceptable.
5. Ld. Advocate for the respondent Mr. S.S. Jinsiwale submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer as the electricity is being used for commercial purpose. Though the supplementary bill has been issued by respondent based on MF-2 factor which is as per provisions under the Electricity Act, the bill is just and reasonable and it is nothing but the correct bill. Ld. Advocate for the respondent, on query by the bench further submitted that there is no regular audit system to check the charging system from the vast number of consumers of the respondent. So, as per the respondent the charging as per MF-2 factor is correct and the supplementary bill which is issued is true and correct.
6. Considering the rival contentions of both parties, submissions of both the parties and going through the record following points arise for my determination and I have given my findings against them:
Sr. Points Findings
No.
(i) Whether Revision Petitioner/complainant is : Yes
a Consumer?
(ii) Whether order passed by the Ld. District : No
Commission is just, legal, and proper?
(iii) What order : As per
final order
below.
RP/21/01 4/6
7. POINT No.1 - CONSUMER:
The revision petitioner, original complainant is paying bills charged by the respondent, regularly on monthly basis. The petitioner is running the hoteling business, for earning livelihood, which is submitted by the petitioner in the complaint as well as this revision petition. To decide whether the petitioner is "Consumer", the legal position of the petitioner is confirmed by the admission of this in the judgment and the order passed by, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, MSEDCL, Nashik Zone dated 3rd July 2020, page no.C-10 of the petition compilation, while giving reasons, learned forum has accepted it as undisputed fact, " The claimant being a consumer of the respondent". This makes the position of complainant clear that, he is consumer of the respondent. As per the judgment and order referred in this order and filed by Ld. Advocate for the respondent, Civil Appeal no.1672 of 2020, Assistant Engineer( D-1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Vs Rahamtullah Khan alias Rahamajulla decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18th February 2020, in para 60.3, this position is made clear and the para says, "The electricity Act 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act 1986 run parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited do the disputes relating to 'unfair trade practice' or 'restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider' ; or 'if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service' or 'hazardous service' or the "service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law".
RP/21/01 5/6Thus, considering the above cited references, and also as per the section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act is not in derogation of any other law, the bench is of the opinion that the revision petitioner- original complainant is consumer. Hence answer to the POINT No.1 is AFFIRMATIVE
8. POINT No. 2 - ORDER BY DISTRICT DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Learned advocate of the revision petitioner, submitted that, the respondents have given, supplementary bill, suddenly after the period of four years of "mistake" of the employees of respondents. Also, the respondent is threatening to disconnect the electric supply to the revision petitioner's hotel. During the Corona period the business of hoteling has come to standstill and already petitioner is incurring losses. It was contended by Ld. Advocate for the revision petitioner, that, though, the complaint by the petitioner was heard by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, MSEDCL, Nashik Zone, proper representation of the complainant through advocate was not allowed, and hence the decision and the order passed by the forum was unilateral and without hearing the complainant in "true sense of justice".
This bench is of the opinion that, asking complainant to pay the 60 % of the excessive, supplementary bill, for granting stay is arbitrary and not just and proper. Learned District Consumer Commission, needs to hear expeditiously and decide, whether there was "deficiency is service and/ or unfair trade practice", in not supplying the electricity bill as per changed meter in 2015. Considering the latest Corona Pandemic situation and the above discussion, the bench thinks it proper that the complaint to be heard finally and to be decided on merit at the earliest. So, the interim order passed by learned District Commission needs to be set aside. At the same RP/21/01 6/6 time, the respondent should not take any coercive action of disconnection of electricity supply, till the complaint is finally heard and disposed of on merit. Hence the answer to POINT no.2 is NEGATIVE.
9. POINT No.3 What Order?
Based on the discussions above under points no.1 and 2, the bench passes following order ORDER
(i) Revision Petition No. RP/21/01 is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid by respondent to Revision Petitioner.
(ii) Conditional order passed by the District Commission, Nashik on 30/12/2020 in Consumer Complaint No.397 of 2020 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Respondent/original opponent should not take any coercive action against the petitioner/original complainant till final disposal of complaint.
(iv) Ld. District Commission, Nashik is hereby directed to hear this matter expeditiously and dispose of within a period of one month from the date of this order.
(v) Parties to appear before the District Commission, Nashik on 22/02/2021.
(vi) Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced on 16th February, 2021.
[Dr.S.K. Kakade] Presiding Member emp