##PAGE1##

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO.564 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 08.03.2016 passed in Case.No.387/2015 by

District Commission, Gwalior)

. M.P.MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT

VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED,

THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

COMPANY AAMKHO,

LASHKAR, GWALIOR … APPELLANT.

Versus

. NANKI BAI,

R/O MAMA KA BAZAR,

LASHKAR,

DISTT. GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms.Sapna Aggrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.

None present for respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed on .12.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered

by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

-2-

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

M.P.Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Limited (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Electricity Company’) directed against the order

dated 8.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’)

in complaint case no.387/2015, whereby the District Commission

has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent

and has directed the Electricity Company to quash the bill for

August’ 2015 demanding Rs.3,31,542/- and has directed the

Electricity Company to raise fresh bill within a period of 30 days

on the basis of average billing of actual consumption from the

month of May, June and July 2015. The amount already paid by

the complainant is directed to be adjusted in the payable amount.

In addition, compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,500/-,

respectively, has also been awarded.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the Electricity Company argued

that the District Commission has erred in quashing the bill of

August’ 2015. There was no reason to interfere with the said bill

since it was issued on the basis of actual reading and same was

accepted by the complainant / respondent also. The complainant

/ respondent had also made payment against the said bill without

any protest. The meter was also duly tested by adopting

electronic and technical method in LTMT lab and it was found to

be OK. So far as the direction given by the District Commission to

raise actual consumption bill on the basis of average is arbitrary

and illegal when the meter was found to be fully functional and in

-3-

OK condition. She prayed that there has been no deficiency in

service on part of the Electricity Company and therefore the

charges imposed on account of damages for mental agony and

cost of legal expenses are unsustainable. On these grounds she

prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. We find that the complainant / respondent had

approached the District Commission on the ground that she is the

holder of the electricity connection No.242430-22-2304762000

and is a regular payer of electricity bills. The complainant alleged

that when she observed that the meter consumption in the said

meter for the month of June’ 2015 was high, she requested for

meter inspection and deposited requisite charges with the

Electricity Company. It is alleged that a technician while taking

out the meter had mentioned the final reading as 38283 units.

However later on the final meter reading was mentioned as 71541

units. This act of the Electricity Company amount to negligence

and deficiency in service. The complainant / respondent also

deposited Rs.35,000/- with the Electricity Company under protest

and therefore approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

5. It is observed that on 10.06.2015 the actual reading is

recorded as 33518 units. On the said date the reading was

33518 units, on the basis of which bill for July’ 2015 was issued.

Undoubtedly, on 10.06.2015 final reading is recorded as 33518

units as shown in the issued bill (Exhibit C-2). The District

Commission has therefore, rightly observed that the reason is not

clear that on what basis, next day, reading was suddenly shown

-4-

as 71451 units. Despite there being specific observation