##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1573/2016

Krishnalal Jatav

S/o Durgadas Jatav

R/o Nehru Nagar Basti

Gud Road, Near Jhankar Talkies

Rewa (M.P.) ... Appellant

VERSUS.

1. Executive Engineer

M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut

Vitaran Co. Ltd.

Rewa (M.P.)

2. Junior Engineer

M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut

Vitaran Co. Ltd.

Rewa (M.P.). ... Respondents

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI PRACHETA MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI AJAY DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 23.12.2025 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter

referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated

31.8.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

: 2 :

Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District

Commission’), in complaint case No. 222/2015, whereby the

District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed him.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that he

had filed the complaint before the District Commission on the

ground that the electricity meter installed in his premises was

defective. Request for meter inspection was made and

inspection was carried out. Learned counsel argued that the

specifications mentioned in the meter testing report do not

corroborate with that of the complainant’s meter. Meter number

and sanctioned load are mentioned differently. The District

Commission has dismissed the complaint, relying on the said

inspection report and therefore, the impugned order deserves

to be set aside.

4. We find that the complainant/appellant had approached

the District Commission on the ground that the electricity meter

in his premises was showing exorbitant electricity consumption.

An Inspector inspected the premises and observed that the

meter was running faster @ 10%. The complainant alleged

that though meter testing was done but the test report shows

that the electricity meter which was inspected, was different

than the one, which was installed in the complainant’s

premises.

5. The Electricity Company before the District

Commission submitted that the meter number was mentioned

differently in few previous bills, which was merely a

typographical error. In fact, the meter which was tested was

: 3 :

the same, which was being used by the complainant.

Therefore, prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

6. We find that the complainant has challenged the

impugned order on the same grounds on which he had

approached the District Commission by filing the complaint. He

alleged that the inspection report does not mention meter

number and the sanctioned load correctly. The complainant

himself has signed the said inspection report. Thus, the

objection from him regarding said inspection report has rightly

held as not maintainable by the District Commission.

7. We conclude that no cogent evidence has been led by

the complainant to prove deficiency in service on part of the

Electricity Company.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or

infirmity on part of the District Commission, while passing the

impugned order.

9. As a result, the appeal filed by the complainant,

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to

costs.

(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)

PRESIDENT MEMBER

Mercy