M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.906 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 04.04.2019 passed in Case.No.09/2016 by District Commission, Sheopur)

M.P.POORV KSHETRIYA VIDHYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHEOPUR. … APPELLANT.

Versus . SHARIF MOHD., R/O BALAPURA, SHEOPUR. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Rajeev Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Anil Chadokar, learned counsel for respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .03.2026)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

M.P.Poorv Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Electricity Company’) directed against the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sheopur (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no. 09/2016, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint and has directed to quash the bill dated 03.12.2015 demanding Rs.1,54,137/-. Electricity Company is further directed to issue fresh bill of 720 units @ 30 units per month from 03.12.2013 to 03.12.2015, without any surcharge to the complainant within a month and issue next bill as per meter reading after installing new electricity meter on electricity connection as per rules within 15 days, from the date of the order. The complainant shall deposit the revised bill amount in one go or in four instalments from the date of receipt of the bill. Cost of Rs.1,500/- is also awarded to the complainant.

2. Briefly put, the complainant about 20 – 22 years prior had deposited money with the Electricity Company in order to obtain a domestic electricity connection, but the Electricity Company did not provide the electricity connection to him. During the intervening period (20-22 years) the Electricity Company neither sent any bill nor made any demand from the complainant. Nevertheless, on 03.12.2015 the Electricity Company issued a recovery notice for Rs.1,54,137/- on electricity connection no. 15–5–325586000 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. Electricity Company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that complaint is filed on false grounds to evade payment of electricity dues. Immediately after receiving the application from the complainant, meter no.55705 was installed on his connection. But as the meter was tampered, resulting in disabled display, billing was done on the basis of estimated consumption. It is alleged that complainant was continuously demanded to pay dues and thereafter notice was issued by the Electricity Company. Following the complaint, a physical verification was also conducted and it was found that the connection was operational but the meter had been removed from the site. The Electricity Company submitted that the complainant is fully utilizing the said connection and has filed this complaint in order to escape from the liability. Hence prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the Electricity Company has filed written arguments wherein it is submitted that the District Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction by quashing the statutory demand notice and granting reliefs to the complainant, for a period barred by limitation. He further asserted that the complainant has failed to provide any substantial evidence to support his claim of non-existent connection, whereas the physical verification done by the Electricity Company and the complainant’s signature on the panchnama confirms active use of electricity by the complainant. He further submitted that complainant’s failure to file rejoinder specifically proves the assertions of meter tampering and validity of estimated billing remains legally