Date of filing :02.02.2021 Date of order :09.06.2022 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 30 OF 2021 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 1068 OF 2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED Shaileshsingh Phoolsingh Thakur, R/o Kailash Nagar, Tq. Nanded, Dist.Nanded. …APPELLANT VERSUS

1. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D. Company Ltd., Nanded, Tq. and Dist.Nanded.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D. Company Ltd., Nanded, Tq. and Dist.Nanded. …RESPONDENTS CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.Ashish Shinde & Adv.Vaibhav Kulkarni for appellant, Adv.Punit Mehta for respondents.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 09/06/2022)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.06.2020 passed by District Forum , Nanded in C.C.No.1068/2018 complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opponents in complaint No.1068/2018 before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’ and ‘opponents’ as per their status in the complaint and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is referred to as ‘District Forum’ for the sake of convenience.

3. (i) It is the case of complainant that his deceased father Fulsingh and he, both started the business of production of chilled water for distribution in the public under the name as Swastik Public Water Supply in Kailash Nagar, Nanded for self employment purpose. They obtained electricity connection from opponent, meter No.550010580710 was installed. After the death of Fulsingh on 03.04.2017, the complainant continued the business.

And he is almost regularly paying the electricity bills.

(ii) In the month of August 2018, the actual bill was Rs.21,657.07, the opponent issued bill of RS.1,78,290/-. The excess bill of Rs.85,030/- is issued to the complainant. The complainant raised objection to said bill. However , he was assured by opponent for reducing the excess amount levied. The complainant paid Rs.40,000/- and Rs.1777/- as per the directions of opponent on 21.08.2018. However, the opponent did not keep their word and further issued bill of Rs.1,39,160/- in the month of Oct- 2018. The opponent disconnected the supply of complainant on 10.10.2018 without notice to the complainant and due to which the business of the complainant. In spite of written request, the opponent did not restore the electric supply. The opponent has caused deficiency in service towards the complainant . Therefore ,the complainant filed the consumer complaint with directions to opponent to restore the supply, to pay of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the loss of business, compensation of Rs.1 lac and Rs.10,000/-

towards the cost.

4. The opponent filed written version before the District Forum and denied the allegations. It is replied that the opponent has taken action against the complainant for unauthorised use of electricity U/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Therefore the amount of Rs.85,030/- has been added in the regular bill and he is issued bill of Rs.1,78,640/-including the arrears . The complainant himself is responsible for the alleged levy of bill for the unauthorised use. The matter cannot be adjudicated before the District Forum in view of the ratio laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Power Corporation –Vs- Anis Ahmed & other (2013)(8) SCC 491. The complainant has taken connection of the electricity for commercial purpose, hence he cannot file the complaint before District Forum . He could have raised grievance before CGRF, Redressal Agency established U/s 42(5) of the Electricity Act. The complainant is not regular in paying the electricity bill. The opponent denied the allegation of deficiency in service and requested for dismissed of the complaint.

5. The District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint considering the defence of opponent that the opponent is