STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/1573 SANJAY AGRAWAL PRESENT ADDRESS - KALLANGUNJ, KHANDWA, TEH. AND DIST.KHANDWA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MPPKVVCO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - ANAND NAGAR, KHANDWA, DIST. KHANDWA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

MPPKVVCO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THRO. EXE.ENGG., ANAND NAGAR, KHANDWA. DIST. KHANDWA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SANJAY AGRAWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MPPKVVCO.LTD.

DATED: 20/05/2025

ORDER

DI M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1573 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 25.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.82/2017 by District Commission, Khandwa)

SANJAY S/O SHRI KAMALCHAND AGRAWAL,

R/O KALLANGANJ, KHANDWA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-KHANDWA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED, ANAND NAGAR, KHANDWA (M.P.)

2. M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ANAND NAGAR, KHANDWA (M.P.) …. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

(Passed On 20.05.2025)

Per say Justice Sunita Yadav This is an appeal by the appellant/complainant against the order dated

25.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khandwa (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.82/2017 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had obtained a domestic electricity connection number 8333470000 from the opposite party-electricity company. In May-2015 the electricity company installed a new meter in the complainant's premises and on the basis of reading taken on 25.07.2015 showing previous reading 1802 and present reading 1857 raised a bill for a sum of Rs.76,820/- in the month of August-2015. Being aggrieved by the said demand the complainant approached the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Indore on which case no.W-0326716 was registered. An order was passed on 21.03.2016 staying the recovery of disputed bill and directed to issue bill on the basis of average consumption recorded in the new meter in the first month. It is further submitted by the complainant that he deposited Rs.25,000/-. In his absence, the meter was checked in the laboratory and the consumption shown in the bill was found correct. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-electricity company approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party-electricity company by filing reply to the complaint submitted that against the disputed meter readings and bills the complainant had already approached Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Indore & Ujjain and his grievance has already been decided. If the complainant is aggrieved by the order of the Forum he ought to have approached the Electricity Ombudsman under the provisions of M. P. Electricity Rules. It is further submitted that on investigation it was found that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was properly functioning. The complainant intentionally did not want to pay the electricity bills and has filed the present complaint on false grounds which be dismissed with costs.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that the District Commission has failed to consider the documents filed by the complainant appellant which corroborate that there was deficiency in service on part of the opposite party/respondent-electricity company, therefore, the impugned order be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, learned coun