STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR Appeal No. A/20/151 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/02/2020 in Case No. No. CC/19/44 of District Bhandara)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.

Ltd. Through its Dy Executive Engineer, Sub Division , Sakoli, District Bhandara. ...........Appellant (s)

Versus Ravikant S/o. Maniksao Petkar, R/o. Dwara Jain Kirana & General Stores, Pragati Colony, Sendurwafa, Taluka Sakoli, District Bhandara.

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: Adv. Yogesh Rahate for the appellant.

Respondent is present in person.

Dated : 03 Jan. 2025 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 03/01/2025)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. Appellant /original opposite party has preferred the present appeal against the impugned order dated 26/02/2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhandara in Consumer Complaint No. CC/19/44 by which the consumer complaint filed by the complainant /respondent came to be allowed partly and the appellant / opposite party was directed to charge/issue consumption bill to the complainant /beneficiary a the prevailing rate of domestic consumption from 26/02/2020 onwards and complainant was directed to pay the bill regularly to the O.P.

2. Short facts leading to filing of the appeal may be narrated as under:-

In nutshell it is a case of the appellant that the appellant is a Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. The complaint was filed with the allegations that the complainant /respondent is having his tenanted small kirana shop at Sendurwafa, Taluka Sakol, District Bhandara and the said kirana shop premises is owned by Smt. Rajshree Ramkrishnaji Mungalmare. It is further alleged that the said rental shop of the complainant is situated in one block and as he was running the said shop , therefore, the payment of electric consumption charges is his responsibility .

3. It is further alleged that as per the Newspaper article published in Dainik Deshounnati on 20/07/2013 and in Dainik Lokmat on 10/09/2013, in which it was published that the consumer having the electric consumption below 300 units per month will be charged at domestic rate of electricity consumption charges. It is alleged that though such directions were given by the MERC, to the opposite party, however, the bills issued to the complainant on commercial basis.

Therefore, the complainant was required to pay more amount of bills.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged a complaint with the officers of MSEDCL, however, instead of giving satisfactory reply, the supply was disconnected on 30/10/2013 during the season of Diwali. Therefore, the financial losses had been caused to the complainant. The complainant had deposited the entire bill of Rs. 1710/- on 27/11/2013 along with the reconnection charges of Rs. 100/- and thereafter the supply was re-started.

5. The complainant alleged that after making the complaint to the Secretary , MERC, the inspection was done. It is further alleged that the complainant was having consumption of one table fan, CFL of 7 volt and 18 volt and LED 7 volt and his monthly consumption is between 10 to 15 units and the bill issued for the month of November and December was of 1 unit only even though the bill was charged on commercial basis

6. It is further alleged that in respect of the grievances the complaint was lodged with the Taluka Legal Service Committee in the Lok Adalat, however, inspite of calling the Dy. Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Sakoli, and nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party on 23/11/2013. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with the learned Forum with the grievance that after the inspection , the bills should be issued on domestic rate (DL) instead of commercial basis (CL) along with other relief of compensation.

7. After filing of the complaint, notice was came to be issued to the O.P.-