STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/17/792 MPMKVVCO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - HOSPITAL ROAD, VIDISHA, DIST. VIDISHA,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SAHU ATTA CHAKKI PRESENT ADDRESS - DIST.VIDISHA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MPMKVVCO.LTD.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SAHU ATTA CHAKKI DATED: 09/09/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 28.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.11/2016 by the District Commission, Vidisha)

THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

M.P.MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN

COMPANY LIMITED, HOSPITAL ROAD,

VIDISHA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

M/S SAHU ATTA CHAKKI, R/O SAVARKAR BAL VIHAR, PROPRIETOR HARI SINGH, S/O SHRI GANGARAM JI SAHU, DISTRICT-VIDISHA (M.P.) … RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Rajeev Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed On 09.09.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member:

This appeal assails the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.11/2016 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant for running his flour mill had obtained three phase electricity connection of 10 HP from the opposite party-electricity company. It is submitted by the complainant that as per meter reading he was continuously paying the electricity bills. It is alleged by the complainant in the bill dated 06.11.2015 current amount of Rs.8,940/- with outstanding amount of Rs.10,806/- i.e. total amount of Rs.19,486/- was shown. On enquiry being made it was informed that the Audit team had found recovery of Rs.10,659/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party-electricity company raised demand for the period from 2009 to 2015 whereas as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, no amount shall be recoverable after a period of two years from the date when such sum became due. The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party-electricity company filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party-electricity company resisted the complaint stating that the complainant runs flour mill for commercial purpose. Also, the complainant did not pay the outstanding amount of electricity bills. It is further submitted that the complainant was not given bill of 06.11.2015 for Rs.8,940/- but instead for October- 2015 showing consumption of 1511 units a bill for Rs.8,322/- was given in which previous arrears of Rs.10,896/- were added. The total amount of the bill was thus Rs.19,218/-. The complainant paid Rs.7,940/- as part-payment of the said bill. The Audit team for the period from April-2009 to September-2009 on the basis of average consumption of 6 months found recovery of Rs.10,659/- for which demand was made. It is thus submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-electricity company. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and quashed the electricity bill for the month of October & November-2009 which was raised on the basis of meter reading. Compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-electricity company argued that the District Commission has failed to consider that the electricity connection was obtained by the complainant for commercial purposes and therefore he is not a consumer. It is further argued that the District Commission has gravely erred in