Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.M. Sliembole, Presiding Judicial Member and K.B. Gawali, Member
KIRTI AGROTECH LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
First Appeal No. 217 of 2010 in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2009.
Decided on : 07-01-2015

Advocates Appeared:
S.M. Kshirsagar h/f A.C. Mukhedkar, Advocates, for the Appellant; S.N. Tandale, Advocate and S.C. Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent

Consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertaining to unauthorized use and assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act are not maintainable.

Headnote:
Electricity Act - Consumer Complaint - The court held that the consumer complaint challenging electricity bills pertaining to unauthorized use and assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act are not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a consumer of MSEDCL, challenged an additional electricity bill issued by the opponents based on the assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that it was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the consumer complaint challenging the electricity bill was not maintainable based on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the consumer complaint challenging the additional electricity bill issued by the opponents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which held that consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertaining to unauthorized use and assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act are not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the District Consumer Forum and dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference was warranted.

ORDER

S.M. Sliembole, Presiding Judicial Member (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgmentand order dated 25.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hingoli dismissing consumer complaint No. 44/2009.

(For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondents as opponents)

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:

Complainant Kirti Agrotech Ltd. is a consumer of MSEDCL. Opponents 1 and 2 are the engineers of MSEDCL and opponent No. 3 is the Managing Director of M SEDCL. Opponent No. 4 is also a engineer who is appointed as the head of the flying squad which was formed by MSEDCL. According to complainant it has regularly paid the electricity bills. However, on 17.1.2009 the members of the flying squad of MSEDCL i.e. opponent No. 4 visited the premises of complainant company and by inspecting the electric meter issued a bill of Rs. 15,60,926 alleging that complainant was unauthorisely using electricity for commercial purpose i.e. for construction though electric connection was obtained for industrial purpose, etc. Thereafter as complainant has not paid the amount of additional bill, opponents disconnected electric supply. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the' part of opponent, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming declaration that the bill dated 31.1.2009 of Rs. 15,07,926 is illegal and further claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000 more towards cost of the proceedings.

3. Opponents 1 to 3 by their written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that it has legally issued additional bill of Rs. 15,07,926 on the basis of report of flying squad. But as complainant has not paid the bill amount it has rightly disconnected the electric supply. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4. Opponent No. 4 by its separate written version also resisted the complaint contending inter alia that as complainant was found using electric connection unauthorisedly for commercial purpose i.e. for construction purpose, it has rightly made assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act and on the basis of assessment opponents 1 and 2 legally issued additional bill. Further it has also challenged the maintainability of the consumer complaint contending inter alia that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5. On hearing both sides and considering evidence on record, District Consumer Forum held that consumer complaint is not maintainable. In keeping with this finding , District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

6. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order complainant came to this Commission in appeal.

7. We heard learned Counsel for both sides and perused the written notes of argument submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, disputed electricity bill and other documents.

8. Almost all the facts except legality of the disputed bill are not disputed.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Kshirsagar, Proxy Advocate appearing for appellant that complainant is being a consumer of opponent I since long consumer complaint is maintainable in law. But District Consumer Forum without considering this fact wrongly jumped to the conclusion that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, etc. He has also tried to support his contention by relying on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in case of Jharkhand Electricity v. Anwar Ali, II (2005) CPJ 284 (NC), in which it is held that "Electricity Act and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 run parallel regarding limited purpose in respect of arbitrary, illegal, unjustified action against rules and regulations of Electricity Code".

10. Per contra, Mr. Arora, learned Counsel appearing for opponent No. 4 submitted that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document