STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/15/1090 JAIDEEP BHUNAWAT PRESENT ADDRESS - RATLAM ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MPEB PRESENT ADDRESS - RATLAM,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

JAIDEEP BHUNAWAT FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MPEB DATED: 10/09/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 19.08.2015 passed in C.C.No. 24/2014 by District Commission, Ratlam)

JAIDEEP LUNAWAT,

S/O SHRI BABULAL LUNAWAT,

R/O 58-59, GHANS BAZAR, RATLAM (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CITY DIVISION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, RATLAM (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

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

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 10.09.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated

19.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 24/2014 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/appellant has been partly allowed.

2. In short, facts of the case are such that the complainant alleged that the opposite party-electricity company in the month of May-2007 raised bill of more consumption for which the complainant filed a consumer complaint no.32/2010 before the District Commission which was dismissed by the District Commission vide order dated 21.01.2011. Against the said order, the complainant preferred Appeal No.126/2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 26.09.2013 directed the opposite party/respondent-electricity company to issue fresh bills for the period May-2007 to March-2008 and the bill of May-2007 shall be issued on the basis of average of previous three months and the bills from June-2007 to March-2008 shall be issued on the basis of actual consumption, without any surcharge. It was further directed that on payment of the same, the electricity connection of the complainant shall be restored immediately.

3. The complainant alleged that the bill issued on 18.11.2013 by the electricity company was not as per the directions of the State Commission and the previous deposited amount of Rs.1808/- was also not adjusted. It is alleged by the complainant that when he requested to issue bill as per directions of the State Commission, the opposite party-electricity company informed about permanent disconnection and asked to deposit Rs.21,613/- within three days. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party-electricity company filed the present complaint seeking quashment of bill for the month of October-2013 and direction to issue bills for the period May-2007 to March-2008 as per directions of the State Commission as also to adjust the amount of 1808/- along with compensation and costs.

4. The opposite party-electricity company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the electricity connection obtained by the complainant is for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order of the State Commission bills for the period June-2007 to March-2008 were issued on the basis of actual consumption. Till March-2008 the bill was for Rs.8,965/- from which after deducting Rs.2,173/- the amount of Rs.6,792/- found in excess were deducted from the bill till October-2013, a bill for Rs.21,613/- was given. The electricity connection of the complainant was temporarily disconnected and the complainant did not apply for permanent disconnection, the opposite party-electricity company can recover minimum charges as per Clause 7.24 of M.P.Electricity