Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
S.P. Tavade, President and K.M. Lawande, Member
Tata Power Company Limited – Appellant
versus
Vinay Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No.A/17/636
Decided on 13.6.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Advocate Chitra Rentala a/w Tanmay Gor i/b Trilegal
For the Respondent: None present
IMPORTANT POINT
Defect or Deficiency - Once it is established that, there was no defect or deficiency service, there was no question of awarding any compensation to the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S. 41] – Appeal – Services – Electricity Connection – No proof of defect or deficiency service – Compensation cannot be decided - In the present case also, the complainant raised dispute regarding working of the electricity meter. It was referred to the examination. But no fault was found in the meter - Inspite of that the meter was replaced. Said meter was referred for testing. Testing Report from the competent authority shows that the second meter was working properly. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opponent provided deficient services to the complainant. Once it is established that, there was no defect or deficiency service, there was no question of awarding any compensation to the complainant. The District Commission has not considered this aspect properly and came to the erroneous conclusion that the complainant was entitled for the compensation – Appeal is allowed, order set aside. [Paras 6 to 10]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
S.P. Tavade, President—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 29/10/2016 read with modified order dated 09/01/2017 passed by the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban District in consumer complaint No. RBT/12/306, the original opponent has preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original complaint.
2. Complainant is a Chartered Accountant and he is having his residence at Kalina, Mumbai. Complainant is a consumer of opponent. Opponent provided electricity connection to the house of the complainant. The electric meter provided to the house of the complainant was meter bearing No.2028171. The said connection was provided on 11/03/2010. It was contended that the average electricity consumption of the complainant was 850 units to 1500 units per month. It was also contended that the average bill of the complainant was about Rs.6,000/- depending upon its consumption during each season. Complainant used to make payment of the electricity bill in time.
3. In the month of February, complainant received electricity bill for the month of January. It was huge bill wherein it was mentioned that the complainant had consumed 3034 units. It was contended that the said bill was exorbitant. Hence, complainant made grievance about the bill to the opponent. Complainant himself chose to investigate the matter through the local electrician. The local electrician reported that the metre was not working properly and it was defective. Complainant insisted to replace the meter. Accordingly, the meter was replaced and the new meter was installed on 10/03/2012. The opponent issued bill of Rs.21,182/- for the month of January. Complainant deposited only Rs.6,000/- towards the bill. Complainant received bill for the month of February. It was also exorbitant. Hence, the complainant made complaint to the opponent. Accordingly, opponent checked the meter through their Engineer and found that the meter was working properly. The old meter was also checked and verified. It was reported that the said meter was working properly. But the complainant did not accept the said report and ultimately he filed complaint before the District Commission.
4. The opponent appeared and filed written version wherein it was contended that, the grievance raised by the complainant was not proper and correct. It was contended that the first as well as second meter installed by the opponent was correct and proper and it was giving correct reading of the consumption of the electricity. It was contended that the complaint of the complainant was properly dealt with and prompt action was taken by the opponent. It was contended that, many times meter was verified. Similarly complainant had also alleged that there was possibility of misuse of electricity supply by the third person. But the said allegations were also verified by the opponent and it came to the conclusion that, nobody was taking electricity supply from the meter of the complainant. It was contended by the complainant that, the meter be sent to the competent authority for verification. Accordingly, the meter was sent to the NABL. Since NABL declined to verify the meter, the District Commission directed to send the meter to the Electrical Research and Development Association – ERDA. Accordingly, ERDA submitted its report wherein it was mentioned that the meter was proper. Accordingly the opponent issued bill to the complainant for the month of January and February. It was contended that the opponent has attended every complaint of the complainant and inspected the electric meter through the competent authority. It was contended that there was no extra consumption of electricity as well as there was no malfunction of electric meter. It was contended that the complaint was false and bogus. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Therefore, the opponent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5
