M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1095/2016 Through Executive Engineer M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Co. Ltd.

District Narsinghpur (M.P.). ... Appellant VERSUS.

Smt. Subhadra Patel W/o Late D.S. Patel R/o Gali No.1, Main Road Dhanare Colony Tahasil District Narsinghpur (M.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE;

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

SHRI RAJEEV ACHARYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 17.12.2025 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the by the opposite parties/appellant-

M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Electricity Company’), is directed against the order dated 8.7.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 37/2015, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) and has directed the Electricity Company to issue electricity bills on the basis of average consumption of past 6 months to the complainant from August, 2014 onwards. It is also directed that the amount deposited in excess be adjusted in payable bill amount. In addition to this compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- has also been awarded.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the Electricity Company argued that the complainant had applied for the change of the electricity meter on the ground that it was showing defective meter readings. He further argued that the electricity connection No.1442260-93-15-1552510000, was obtained by late D.S. Patel and after his death no steps were taken by his wife/complainant regarding transfer of electricity connection in her name. Since the electricity meter at the relevant period of time was not available with the Electricity Company, therefore, the Electricity Company installed new electricity meter in the premises of the complainant on 19.5.2015, when the same was made available with the Electricity Company. The Electricity Supply Code clearly provides for raising the electricity bills on the basis of average consumption for the time period when meter became dysfunctional or stopped due to any reason. Since there has been no deficiency in service on part of the Electricity Company, the damages on account of mental agony and cost of litigation are arbitrary and deserve to be waived off.

4. As regards objection of the Electricity Company that electricity connection was not transferred in complainant’s name (after her husband’s death) is concerned, we find that the District Commission has rightly made an observation that the complainant through letters had provided information regarding her husband’s death and electricity Company installed new meter, after the complainant had already given aforesaid information. It is expected that now meter was installed after fulfillment of requisite formalities.

5. It is an admitted fact that the meter of the complainant became defective on 14.10.2014 and the complainant had applied for change of electricity meter. Finally the meter was installed in premises on 19.5.2015. Clearly, the complainant suffered on account of delay in meter installation in her premises and therefore, the directions given by the District Commission, regarding issuance of electricity bills on the basis of average consumption of past 6 months, as per provisions of Electricity Supply Code 2004, appear to be justified. On account of sufferings, we observe that the District Commission has rightly given directions regarding payment of compensation and costs.

6. To conclude, the District Commission has not committed any illegality or infirmity, while passing the impugned order.

7. As a result, the appeal filed by the Electricity Company, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs