State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engin M S E D Co Ltd, Parbhani vs Vijay Gaumal Banthaya on 1 February, 2018
1 F.A.No.:668/2017
Date of filing :24.07.2017
Date of order :01.02.2018
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
1.FIRST APPEAL NO. :668 OF 2017
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 90 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :PARBHANI.
1. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Parbhani.
2. Deputy Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Vinay Gendmal Banthya,
Kachi Bazar, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT.
Date of filing :14.09.2017
Date of order :01.02.2018
1.FIRST APPEAL NO. :839 OF 2017
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 90 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :PARBHANI.
Vinay Gendmal Banthiya,
R/o Kacchi Bazar, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Executive Engineer,
M.S.E.D.C.L. Parbhani,
Jintur Road, Parbhani.
2. The Deputy Engineer,
M.S.E.D.C.L. Parbhani city
Jintur Road, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS.
2 F.A.No.:668/2017
CORAM : Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for MSEDCL, Adv.Shri.P.N.Kalani for org.complainant.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 01st of February 2018) Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. These are the cross appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2017 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum Parbhani in C.C.No.90/2016. The appeal No.668/2017 is filed by the original opponents who are the officers of the MSEDCL and the appeal No.839/2017 is filed by the original complainant. For better understanding the appellant officers of the MSEDCL are hereinafter termed as "the opponent MSEDCL" and the appellant i.e. original complainant is hereinafter termed as "the complainant".
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case before the Forum are that, he is the consumer of the opponent MSEDCL having consumer NO.53001001471. That, the said electric consumer number is in the name of his deceased grandfather Shri.Bhikulal Banthya and as a legal heir the said connection is in his possession. It was submitted that the electric meter was showing false reading and therefore he had requested to replace the said faulty meter by new meter. However, instead of replacing meter the opponent MSEDCL disconnected his electric connection permanently on 22.5.2015. It was alleged that although new meter was replaced the electric bills on the faulty meter was not corrected. That, he had filed specific application dated 22.2.2016 to correct excessive bill amount of Rs.2,33,120/-. It was his contention that his consumption of electricity was only about 78 units per month. However, such exaggerated bill of Rs.2,33,120/- was issued on 22.2.2016. That he had deposited Rs.10,000/- and he was 3 F.A.No.:668/2017 assured that the balance amount be corrected and fresh bill would be issued. That, a false police complaint was also lodged against him on 27.3.2016 and criminal case bearing No.129/2016 was registered and his electric connection was again disconnected. Therefore he filed consumer complaint before the Forum seeking direction to the opponent MSEDCL to restore electric connection and to issue him corrected electric bills. In addition he had also sought direction to pay him a compensation Rs.2 lakhs towards mental and physical harassment.
3. The opponent MSEDCL appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. It was submitted that the electric connection was given to grandfather of the complainant namely Bhikulal Banthya and even after his death the electric connection was not changed in the name of the present complainant and hence, the complainant is not a "consumer". It was further submitted that the complainant did not deposit the electric bills regularly and therefore the said electric connection was disconnected on 22.5.2015. However, on making part payment by the complainant the electric connection was restored and the electric meter bearing No.0050093 was replaced by a new meter bearing No.8200537188. But the complainant did not pay the electric bills on new meter also. In addition he illegally obtained another meter bearing No.12394732 in collusion with the lower officer of MSEDCL and said meter was also connected with the same consumer number. That, when this fact was noticed the illegal new meter No.12394732 was seized and electric connection was again disconnected on 27.3.2016 and crime No.129/2016 was also registered against him. It was therefore submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent MSEDCL. However, the complainant filed false consumer complaint without any base and the same be dismissed with cost.
4 F.A.No.:668/20174. The learned Dist.Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering evidence on record passed the impugned order directing the opponent MSEDCL to transfer meter in the name of complainant by obtaining the necessary papers from the complainant. That, the opponent MSEDCL to recalculate the arrears of electric bill and issue corrected bills to the complainant within a period of 30 days to be deposited by the complainant within a period of 90 days. It was also directed to the opponent MSEDCL to pay to the complainant compensation Rs.2000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appeal No.668/2017 is filed by the opponent MSEDCL praying to set aside the impugned order whereas the complainant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order filed appeal No.839/2017 for enhancement of compensation. Both these appeals were heard together on 9.1.2018. Adv.S.N.Tandale for the opponent MSEDCL and Adv.P.N.Kalani for complainant were present. We heard both counsel finally and appeal came to be adjourned for judgment.
6. We have perused the record and also thoughtfully considered the arguments as advanced by learned counsel of both the parties. There are two major points which arise for our consideration.
i) Whether deficiency in service is proved against the opponent MSEDCL as alleged by the complainant and held by the Dist.Consumer Forum?
ii) Whether impugned judgment and order needs our intervention?
As regards point No.(i) :- The allegation of deficiency in service against the opponent MSEDCL mainly based on the grounds of disconnection of electric supply on 22.5.2015 without any notice, the 5 F.A.No.:668/2017 issue of electric bills of excessive amount based on the faulty meter and further disconnection of electric connection on 27.3.2016. Learned counsel Shri.Tandale for the opponent MSEDCL submitted that the electric meter is in the name of Bhikulal who is grandfather of complainant who died in the year 1982 but no steps are taken by the complainant to get the said connection transferred in his name. He further submitted that the complainant had never paid electric bills regularly and therefore his connection was permanently disconnected on 22.5.2015. It is also submitted that the complainant had illegally obtained electric meter bearing No.12394732 and therefore the same was disconnected on 27.3.2016. It is also submitted by him that the excess amount of electric bills is already revised and revised bills is also issued to the complainant in the month of May 2016. That, the complainant has also paid revised amount of bills. Learned counsel Shri.Tandale contended that the Dist.Consumer Forum without considering this fact wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order and therefore submitted that the same be set aside by allowing the appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel Shri.Kalani for the complainant submitted that though the Dist.Consumer Forum held there was deficiency in service on the part of MSEDCL, only meagre amount of compensation towards physical and mental harassment is awarded by Dist.Consumer Forum as against claim of Rs.2 lakhs made by the complainant. He therefore submitted that the appeal be allowed the order in the appeal be modified.
From the perusal of the record specially CPL it reveals that the complainant has not paid electric bills from 20.2.2014 to August 2015 i.e. for more than one year and therefore the opponent MSEDCL has permanently disconnected the electric supply on 22.5.2015. It is further revealed that after depositing the amount of Rs.5,950/- by the complainant on 5.9.2015 his electric connection was again restored.
6 F.A.No.:668/2017It is further observed that the electric connection which was disconnected on 27.3.2016 pertain only disconnection in respect of supply of electric connection through electric meter bearing No.12394732 which was allegedly obtained illegally by the complainant. However, the electric connection to new meter bearing No.8200537188 was not disconnected, as it also reveals from the CPL. It further reveals that from the CPL that the bill of April 2016 amounting to Rs.3,12,200/- was also corrected in the month of May 2016 by deducting there from amount of Rs.2,22,081.98/- and interest of RS.3,294.18 ps. and the revised bill showing Rs.1,17,69.25ps. was issued. This revised amount of bills also appeared to have been paid by the complainant in 4 instalments i.e. Rs.35,000/- on 16.9.2016 and Rs.25,000/- on 21.10.2016 , further Rs.25,000/- on 21.11.2016 and Rs.31,484/- on 20.12.2016 i.e. total amount of Rs.1,16,484/-. Thus it can be seen that the action of disconnection of electricity supply as taken by the opponent MSEDCL was due to non-payment of electric bills regularly and obtained electric meter illegally. As regards the excess amount of bill, the opponent MSEDCL has already revised the same in the month of May 2016. Whereas the consumer complaint was filed on 27.4.2016 when bill was just revised. We thus find that there was no cause of action left for the complainant to file consumer complaint. Hence we do conclude that the alleged deficiency in service against the opponent MSEDCL is not produced.
As regards point No.(ii):-
It is observed that the learned counsel Dist.Consumer Forum has not taken into consideration the fact that electric bill was already revised in the month of May 2016 i.e. before the date of impugned order i.e. 19.6.2017. We also feel that the learned Dist.Consumer Forum has acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the opponent MSEDCL to obtain the required papers from the complainant and to 7 F.A.No.:668/2017 transfer the electric connection in the name of complainant. In fact the transfer of name of electric connection is a different procedure which required to be followed by complainant on his own and therefore it should not form the part of direction to be given under the Consumer Protection Act. We therefore conclude that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum does require our invention.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and our observations we are inclined to allow the appeal bearing No.668/2017 filed by the opponent MSEDCL and to dismiss the appeal No.839/2017 by setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.668/2017 filed by the opponent MSEDCL is allowed. Whereas the appeal No.839/2017 filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.6.2017 passed by learned Dist.Consumer Forum Parbhani is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali, Uma S.Bora, Member Presiding Member Mane