IMPORTANT POINT
Power to review - The power of this Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 11.02.2019 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 513 of 2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 382 of 2013 dated 03.03.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that he had purchased a bungalow from petitioner no. 2 in 2007 and found that the electricity meter installed was defective. He therefore requested the respondent no. 1 to replace the meter which was done on 09.06.2008 for which Rs 700/- was wrongly recovered from him as the respondent was in the process of recovering all meters. This meter was also found by him to be faulty after a few billing cycles. The respondent began issuing bills on an average usage basis till March 2012 when he was presented a bill for 3055 units amounting to Rs 10,390/-. A complaint was filed on 29.06.2012 with the respondent followed by complaints on 16.02.2013 and 16.08.2013. The respondent then changed the meter on 20.07.2013. The petitioner has claimed that the bill for Rs 10,350/- charged in March, 2012 is illegal and needs to be reversed along with the Rs 700/- charged for replacement of meter in 2008.

3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner in Consumer Complaint No. 382 of 2013 on 03.03.2017 on the ground that the electricity bill for 3055 units was correctly computed after subtracting the actual usage from the units consumed as per the meter in March 2012. As there was no excess charged, no deficiency in service was concluded.

4. The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission against this order also came to be dismissed on the grounds that the the petitioner was trying to take advantage of the single instance of an electricity meter being found to be faulty. The order notes that the average billing was don since on several occasions the meter was not available or was inaccessible for recording the reading and hence average reading was recorded for the purpose of billing. The order notes that there were 21 instances when average billing had to be done. The order is detailed and has considered the issues raised by the petitioner and examined the facts and evidences submitted before it. The order reads:—

“(xviii) The Hon’ble State Commission failed to understand the meaning of “INACCE” in proper prospective manner and wrongly says in the judgment that, meter was normal throughout the dispute period and when it was available for the reading, then reading was recorded, this finding on the part of the State Commission is totally wrong and illegal and this finding is on assumption and presumption and when law never permit its, INACCE means meter is available for the reading but meter was not giving the reading. For that purpose clarification by respondent authority filed on record and which is Exhibited J and marked as Exb S.

(xix) March 2012 the bill under faulty meter was issued by respondent company, that please be quashed. The said bill are touching to the March 2012 – 3055 units, April 2012 -255 units, July 2012 – 559 units, August – 180 units, September 2012 – 300 units, November 2012 – 229 units please be quashed and average bill be considered till June 2013 and passed the order to refund rest amount to the appellant..

(xx) The respondent denial the complaint of petitioner and also denied representation by petitioner, which plead in written statement. Hence, the respondent company is Government company and they falsely denied representation on part of the petitioner, hence, this was not good on the part of “king/ state, king neve