IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot claim unduly high compensation.

S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member— This matter was called in the beginning around 10.45 a.m. and since appellant was absent again called out at about 11.35 a.m. and since appellant remained absent, appeal is heard even in his absence.

2. We heard Mr. S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 17th July, 2008 passed in complaint No. 281/2003 Mr. Nandkumay Krishnarao Navgiri v. M.S.E.D. Co. Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘Forum below’ in short). It was a dispute about excess billing in respect of bill dated 20.12.2002 for Rs.12,640 for period 8.10.2002 to 9.12.2002 for total consumption of 3,121 units. Forum below uphold the consumer complaint and directed the respondent/org. OP as under:

“The bill dated 20.12.2002 issued to the complainant by the opposite party, demanding an amount of Rs.12,640 towards electricity consumption for the period from 8.10.2002 to 9.12.2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount towards this bill.

The opposite party is hereby directed to prepare a revised bill for the month of December 2002, showing consumption of 833 units, at the prevailing tariffs, and serve the same upon the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to deduct the amount towards the said bill from the excess amount of Rs.12,640 deposited by the complainant and credit the balance amount to the complainant’s account and adjust the said amount towards the amounts against the future bills to be served upon the complainant.

The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant, an amount of Rs.1,000 by way of compensation.

The opposite party is directed to comply with the foregoing order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.”

4. However, not satisfied with the said order, this appeal is preferred by the original complainant. It may be pointed out that respondent/org. OP has accepted said verdict did did not prefer any appeal.

5. Referring to the consumer complaint, main two prayers (a) and (b) are as under:

“(a) The Opponent Board be directed to clarify and explain the demand of the bill dated 20.12.2002 and if the same could not be explained, then the Opponent Board be directed to charge proper bill as per the rules of the Board.

(b) The Opponent (M.S.E.B.) be directed to pay the complainant, the amount of Rs. 12,890, or if the Opponent clarifies the Bill dated 20.12.2002, to the satisfaction of the complainant, then the excess amount of the said bill be paid to the complainant without adjusting in future bills along with 24% p.a. interest in lieu of damages.”

6. Thus; it is clear that the dispute relates to bill dated 20.12.2002 and the charges levelled accordingly. Forum below has already granted reliefs in that behalf. Under the circumstances, we find it is not a case where it calls for any change in the impugned order. Appeal is devoid of any substance and hence, the order:

ORDER

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.

*******