Date of filing :29.04.2021 Date of order : 11.02.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 106 OF 2021 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 138 OF 2019 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : AURANGABAD.

Shaikh Tayyab Fakira Patel, Appellant R/o Sawangi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Adv.Rahul Joshi)

VERSUS

1. Jr.Engineer, Respondent No.1to3 Maharashtra State Electricity (Adv.P.S.Mehta)

Distribution Co.Ltd, Sawangi, Tq.&Dist.Aurangabad. 2. Dy.Engineer (Rural)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Near Garware Statium, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

3. Executive Engineer (Rural) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Near Garware Statium, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Mrs.Dr.Nisha A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 11/02/2025)

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

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the ‘District Commission’

for short) in C.C.No.138/2019, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant and vacated the interim order passed in his favour.

2. The facts of this appeal are that, the appellant is the consumer of the respondents. He has paid all the electricity bills up to June 2016. However, in July 2016 all of a sudden respondents issued him the electricity bill for the consumption of 9688 units and for the amount of Rs.69,660/-. He complained about it to the respondents. The respondents replaced his old meter in Feb.2017. Meanwhile, so as to avoid the disconnection of electricity supply, he paid sum of Rs.35,000/- out of the disputed bill up to 10.01.2019. Despite of that, on 16.01.2019 the respondents disconnected his electricity supply. Being aggrieved thereby he filed the above referred consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The respondents appeared before the District Commission and contended that, the bills issued to the appellant dated 10.01.2017 and 10.02.2017 have been corrected and the deductions of amount Rs.11,840/- and Rs.3,320/- have been given. No excessive bills have been given to the appellant. Even after the deductions as mentioned above, when the appellant did not pay the further bills his electricity supply has been disconnected. There is no merit in the complaint filed by the appellant.

4. Ld. District Commission on appreciating the evidence before it held that, the Consumer Personnel Ledger (CPL) of the appellant reveals that, from March, 2014 to June, 2016 i.e. for 27 months of long period meter reading was not available.

Therefore, the appellant has been issued electricity bills for the average consumption of 97 units per month for that entire period. When in July, 2016 meter reading was made available, the disputed bill for the consumption of units 9688 has been issued. The complainant was well aware about the fact that, for the ‘non availability’ of the meter reading, he has been given average bills of 97 units per month, for 27 months prior to the disputed bill. When the mistake has been rectified by the respondents by issuing the disputed bill the complaint has been filed by the appellant. The District Commission also casted doubt that, for some months there was zero unit consumption and in some months 453 units (impliedly suggesting that the meter was defective). After the replacement of the old meter the average consumption of the appellant seen to have been 378 units per month. In the above background, the District Commission justified the disputed bill and recorded a finding that, as revision of the disputed bill has been done by the respondents , there is no deficiency in service their part.

5. Adv. P.S.Mehta for the respondents submitted in support of the impugned judgment that, there is no error in it. The District Commission rightly held that, for a long period of 27 mont