The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of legal basis for charging electricity bills based on average consumption and the need for evidence before charging bills.

ORDER

K.B. Gawali, Member (Oral)- This appeal is filed by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the District Forum, Beed in complaint case No. 95/2005. The respondent is the original complainant.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

It is the case of the respondent/org. complainant that he is a consumer of the appellant electrical company for the last 25 years and his consumer number is 582016006571. He had taken this connection for floor mill. It was contended by him that he had paid all electrical bills regularly and there were no arrears against him however on 29.9.2004 he was given electric bill for Rs. 19,886 on the basis of audit report for the year 1999-2002, and hence the said bill was totally incorrect and illegal. He further submitted that subsequently on 16.5.2005 the bill amounting to Rs. 32,780 showing therein arrears of Rs. 27,679 was issued to him. It was also his contention that in the months of June and July, 2005 there was no electric supply due to the burning of the DP. But the appellants had issued electric bill for the said period also. He had therefore approached to the appellants on 5.8.2005 and requested to reduce the amount of bill which was wrongly issued to him. However, no heed was given to his request and therefore he filed the complaint before the Forum and seeking direction against appellants/opponents to cancel the bill dated 29.9.2004 amounting to Rs. 19,886. Also to cancel the bill for the month of June-July 2005 as there was no electric supply and to pay him compensation of Rs. 15,000 and to issue regular bills by cancelling incorrect bills as well as the interest charged on the said amount of bill. It was also requested not to disconnect the electric supply till the decision of his complaint.

3. The appellants/org. opponents had appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was submitted by them that the respondent had paid the electric bill lastly on 23.11.2004 and that in the month of Nov.2004 the audit party had audited their accounts pertaining to the electric bills, in which the audit para was drawn regarding short recovery of Rs. 19,886 from the respondent. According to the audit report the average monthly consumption of the respondent as per CPL was in the range of 50 to 100 units. But as per the electric load sanctioned to him the average monthly unit should have been taken at 300. It was further submitted that as per the CPL in Jan.2004 to Sept.2004 the average consumption of the electricity of the complainant/respondent was in the range of 150 to 320 units, whereas for the period from Feb.1999 to Sept. 2002 the consumption was in the range of 43 to 109 units. Thus the said consumption of electricity from Feb.1999 to Sept.2002 was treated as suspicious and by considering 300 units per month the difference bill was worked out by the audit officer at Rs. 19,886 and hence it was contended that the said bill was correctly issued and there was no any deficiency in service on their part.

4. District Forum after perusal of record and hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/opponents to cancel all the bills and also charged interest in the said bill. In addition, it was directed to pay Rs. 8000 towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint. Further directions were given to the appellants to issue bills to the respondents as per actual consumption of electricity.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeal came to be filed in this Commission. Notice was served on the respondent. Initially on 26.5.2007 Advocate Mr. N.N. Nimbalkar had appeared on behalf of respondent and on 27.12.2007 he filed written argument on record. Thereafter none remained present for the respondent. The case was posted for final argument on 21.6.2012. Advocate, Mr. S.N. Tandale present for appellant. None for respondent. We heard Advocate, Mr. Tandale at length and appeal was closed