Date of filing :28.01.2020 Date of order : 05.12.2023.

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSALCOMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR. FIRST APPEAL NO. : 186 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 569 OF 2019 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd, A Company registered under the India Companies Act, R/o Opp. Bharadi Petrol Pump, Through its Dy. Executive Engineer, Santosh Madhukarrao Adhikar, R/o Sillod, Aurangabad. APPELLANT (Adv.P.S.Mehta)

VERSUS Sk.Shakib S/o Sk.Saheb, R/o Dr.Zakir Hussain Nagar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. RESPONDENT (Adv.Snehal Kulkarni)

CORAM :-

Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Mrs.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member. Mr.Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 05.12.2023.)

Per Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the District Consumer Commission Aurangabad in C.C.No. 569/2019 dated 30.10.2019, wherein the complaint filed by the respondent is allowed by the said Commission. The appellant was the opponent and the respondent was the complainant in the said consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission Aurangabad.

2. The respondent had filed the above said consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Aurangabad because in Sept. 2018 the appellant had issued him the electricity bill of Rs. 155655/- for the use of 10115 units. In fact, his consumption was merely around 50 units per month. But the appellant had issued him the disputed bill because it turned out that the meter of the appellant was running 38.61 % faster than the normal. He prayed the ld. District Consumer Commission that, the disputed bill for the month of Sept. to Dec. 2018 is quashed. He further prayed the ld. District Consumer Commission that, from Jan. to March 2019 the bill for average consumption of 212 units be given along with the compensation for mental and physical harassment and the cost of the proceeding.

3. The appellant appeared in that matter before the ld. District Consumer Commission and contended that in Sept. 2018 the consumption of the respondent was noted to be 10115 units and for Rs.1,55,655/-. Thereafter, when that meter was tested on 1.12.2018 it was found that, it is 38.61 % faster. Therefore, in the circumstances average bill for the use of the electricity for the month of Oct. and Nov. 2018 was given and in bill of Dec. 2018 sum of Rs. 101212/- was subtracted from the bill of the respondent. It is further contended by the appellant that, the bills of the respondent from April. 2016 to Sept. 2018 were corrected accordingly on 20.03.2019 and his bill finally given the rebate of Rs. 106595/- . There has been no deficiency in service caused to the respondent.

4. The ld. District Consumer Commission after considering all the record and the submissions, held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The bill correction from April 2016 to Sept. 2018 is cancelled. The respondent has paid the bill till August 2018 for consumption of units 1755 can not be corrected. It is further held that, from Sept. 2018 to till the disconnection of electricity supply, the consumption should be assumed to be of 100 units. The ld. District Consumer Commission further directed that the appellant should not claim any bill for the period till the resumption of supply. The respondent shall be given Rs.

10,000/- for mental and physical harassment.

5. The ld. Advocate P.S.Mehta for the appellant submitted that, the meter testing report was given to the complainant and the same was signed by him without any dispute. Though the respondent was the defaulter the ld. District Consumer Commission not charged any interest or penalty on the bills. The defence of the appellant was not taken in the account by the ld. District Consumer Commission. The impugned judgment suffers from the above infirmities. It may kindly be quashed set aside with cos