STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. A/2001/62 (Arisen out of order dated 05/10/2000 passed in consumer complaint No. CC/1999/269 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur)

1. Executive Engineer Mah. State Electricity Board, Rural Division, Solapur

2. Assistant Engineer Mah. State Electricity Board, Rural Division, Solapur Appellants V/S Shrishail Shankar Dahitane R/o – Dhotri, Tal. South Solapur, Dist. - Solapur Respondent BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. P. Tavade : President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani : Member For the The learned Advocate Shri. S.

Appellant :

Jinsiwaleis present for Appellant.

For the The learned Advocate Shri. Vijay Respondent :

H. Palande JUDGMENT (06/09/2024)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani : Member

1] The appellant has preferred present appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur in consumer complaint no. CC/1999/269 dated 05/10/2000.

2] The operative order of the judgment dated 05/10/2000 in Consumer Complaint No. CC/1999/269 is as under, i) The opponent is directed to refer the present complaint to the Electrical Inspector.

ii) The opponent is further directed to cancel the bill referred in the consumer complaint of the complainant and also pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant.

3] Being aggrieved by the said order, the opponent in the original complaint/appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground of section

26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The said section is as under, “Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of Such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during Such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:

Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days I notice of his intention so to do.”

The appellant has further made ground that, as the respondent has time to time made complaint pertaining to the electricity meter, the same has been tested and checked from the Electrical Inspector and report has been submitted. It is further contended that average bill was issued to the respondent and as soon as all the meters had been tested, final bill was issued to the respondent pertaining to the electricity used by the original complainant/respondent. It is further made ground that the Electrical Inspector does not have power to verify the complaints of the consumers. The India Electricity Act provides different mechanism for redressal of the complaints made by the consumers. The said fact has been ignored by the District Forum and passed wrong order without based on the evidence. Therefore, it is prayed by the appellant that, the said judgment and order may be set aside and the original consumer complaint be dismissed with costs.

4] The Appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent submitted that the said impugned order was proper. Time to time the original complainant has moved application for rectifying the meters. It is further contended that MSEB Department, Electrical Inspector, Solapur, wrote letter dated 18/03/2010; wherein it is contended that order passed by the District Forum may be complied accordingly. However; the same has not been complied with and rectified bill has not been issued to the consumer. Th