Date of filing :25.01.2018 Date of order :26.02.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 37 OF 2018 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 398 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : AURANGABAD. Ayyub s/o Gulab Shah, Appellant R/o Naigaon, (Adv.Rahul Joshi)

Tq. and Dist. Aurangabd.

VERSUS

1. Jr.Engineer, Respondent No.1to3.

MSEDCL, office, MSEDCL, (Adv.P.S.Mehta)

Sawangi, Tq.&Dist.Aurangabad.

2. Dy.Engineer, MSEDCL office (Rural), MSEDCL, Near Garware Stadium, Tq.&Dist.Aurangabad. 3. Executive Engineer, MSEDCL office (Rural), MSEDCL, Near Garware Stadium, Tq.&Dist.Aurangabad.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 26/02/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the 'District Commission' for short) passed in CC No. 398 / 2017, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant is the consumer of the respondents. He had taken the electricity supply for his house from them in 2010. It is his averment that his consumption of electricity is very meagre. Usually, he received the electricity bill for consumption of 40 to 60 units every month. However, the respondents issued him the electricity bill of unreasonable consumption in February 2016. He raised the complaint with the respondents, but is of no use. In February 2017 the respondents unilaterally removed his meter. He applied for meter testing which is found to be in order. Thereafter, also he requested the respondents to install the new metre and resume his electricity supply, but his request was not considered favourably. It is therefore he filed the above mentioned consumer complaint before the District Commission, in which the impugned judgment is passed.

3. After admission of the complaint filed by the appellant notices were issued to the respondents. They did not appear before the District Commission. As such, the matter proceeded ‘ex-parte’ against them before the District Commission.

4. The District Commission after hearing the learned counsel of the appellant and on appreciating the evidence before it drawn the conclusion that the Consumer Personal Ledger ('CPL' for short) filed by the appellant shows that, from 18/7/2014 he has not paid any electricity bill. Therefore, the bills of arrears and interest there in went on piling and the disputed bill is lawfully been given to the appellant. When the appellant raise the complaint about it with the respondents they disconnected his electricity supply and discharged their official duty. There is no deficiency in service caused to the appellant. Ultimately, the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

5 We heard both learned Adv. Rahul G. Joshi for the appellant and Adv. Punit S. Mehta for the respondents.

6. Adv. Rahul Joshi for the appellant submitted that, the bills issued by the respondents are totally arbitrary and excessive and without following the law. When the average consumption of the appellant per month was merely of 40 to 60 units, the respondents gave him electricity bill for huge consumption and ultimately on the non payment of the same they caused the permanent disconnection of electricity supply. The District Commission on the erroneously and wrongly relied on the CPL and held that, the appellant has not paid electricity bill from July 2014. In fact when the appellant has been given the bill of unreasonable and unexplained consumption, he was unable to pay the electricity bill. The District Commission not given any consideration to this vital fact and wrongly passed the impugned judgment, which is contrary to the law. He thus submitted that the same make kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing the consumer com