Back
F.A..No.:692/2014 &
74/2015
1
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :22.10.2014
Date of order :12.04.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :692 OF 2014 & 74 OF 2015
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 90 & 57 OF 2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : BEED.
Dr.Sharad Madhukar Pawar,
R/o Near New Bus Stand,
Main Road, Majalgaon,
Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
Dist.Beed.
2. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed.
3. Chief Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Divisional Office at Latur,
Tq. & Dist.Latur.
...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM :
Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present :
Adv.Mr.S.T.Agrawal for appellant,
Adv.Mr.S.N.Tandale for respondents.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 25th April 2016)
F.A..No.:692/2014 &
74/2015
2
Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. By these appeals complainant Dr.Sharad Madhukar Pawar
challenged
the
judgments
and
orders
dated
26.9.2014
and
29.10.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum Beed dismissing
consumer complaint Nos.90/2014 & 57/2014 respectively.
(For the sake of brevity appellant Dr.Sharad Madhukar Pawar is
hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 who
are engineers of MSEDCL as opponents)
2. Since the parties in both the appeals are common and further
the facts of the matters are identical and common, we have decided to
dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainant Dr.Sharad Madhukar Pawar and his wife who are
doctors, are doing medical practice at Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. In the
year 2004, they had started their hospital in rented premises near old
S.T.Bus Stand, Majalgaon. At the same time, complainant had
obtained electric connection in the rented premises. Domestic meter
of single phase was provided to the complainant allotting consumer
No.585010254688. As per consumption of electricity, bills were
issued by the opponents and complainant paid electricity charges
regularly. Thereafter in the year 2008 complainant purchased house
from one Smt.Girijabai Dake which is situated near New S.T.Bus
stand, Majalgaon and shifted his hospital there and requested
opponents to transfer the electric meter in their newly purchased
premises. Accordingly the meter was shifted. Since then complainant
paid electricity bills regularly. However, it was noticed that opponents
illegally issued the electric bills on the basis of commercial tariff
F.A..No.:692/2014 &
74/2015
3
instead of domestic tariff. Therefore he requested opponents to make
correction in the bill and refund excess amount. Opponents also gave
assurance to make necessary correction. However, on 8.3.2014
opponents issued bill of Rs.35,030/- for the period from 15.1.2014 to
15.2.2014 and as there was delay in payment of the bill amount, on
28.3.2014 without any notice disconnected the electricity supply. On
the very next day i.e. 29.3.2014 complainant paid amount of
Rs.35,030/- and requested opponents to restore the electricity supply.
But opponents avoided to restore the electricity supply. Therefore
alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents, complainant
filed consumer complaint No.90/2014 claiming restoration of electric
supply and further direction to refund excess amount with
declaration that the electricity connection is domestic connection and
not commercial connection. Prior to that on 21.4.2014 complainant
filed consumer complaint No.57/2014 and submitted that prior to the
purchase of premises from Smt.Girijabai Dake, premises were being
used by Mr.Ganpat Dake for restaurant and hote
