Back
1 A/186/2020
Date of filing :28.01.2020
Date of order : 05.12.2023.
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSALCOMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 186 OF 2020
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 569 OF 2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd,
A Company registered under the India Companies Act,
R/o Opp. Bharadi Petrol Pump,
Through its Dy. Executive Engineer,
Santosh Madhukarrao Adhikar,
R/o Sillod, Aurangabad.
APPELLANT
(Adv.P.S.Mehta)
VERSUS
Sk.Shakib S/o Sk.Saheb,
R/o Dr.Zakir Hussain Nagar, Sillod,
Tq. Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad.
RESPONDENT
(Adv.Snehal Kulkarni)
CORAM :-
Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
Mrs.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.
Mr.Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 05.12.2023.)
Per Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
This is an appeal against the impugned judgment
passed
by
the
District
Consumer
Commission
Aurangabad in C.C.No. 569/2019 dated 30.10.2019,
wherein the complaint filed by the respondent is allowed
by the said Commission. The appellant was the
2 A/186/2020
opponent and the respondent was the complainant in the
said consumer complaint before the District Consumer
Commission Aurangabad.
2. The respondent had filed the above said consumer
complaint before the District Consumer Commission,
Aurangabad because in Sept. 2018 the appellant had
issued him the electricity bill of Rs. 155655/- for the use
of 10115 units. In fact, his consumption was merely
around 50 units per month. But the appellant had issued
him the disputed bill because it turned out that the
meter of the appellant was running 38.61 % faster than
the normal. He prayed the ld. District Consumer
Commission that, the disputed bill for the month of Sept.
to Dec. 2018 is quashed. He further prayed the ld.
District Consumer Commission that, from Jan. to March
2019 the bill for average consumption of 212 units be
given along with the compensation for mental and
physical harassment and the cost of the proceeding.
3. The appellant appeared in that matter before the ld.
District Consumer Commission and contended that in
Sept. 2018 the consumption of the respondent was noted
to be 10115 units and for Rs.1,55,655/-. Thereafter,
when that meter was tested on 1.12.2018 it was found
that, it is 38.61 % faster. Therefore, in the circumstances
average bill for the use of the electricity for the month of
Oct. and Nov. 2018 was given and in bill of Dec. 2018
sum of Rs. 101212/- was subtracted from the bill of the
respondent. It is further contended by the appellant that,
3 A/186/2020
the bills of the respondent from April. 2016 to Sept. 2018
were corrected accordingly on 20.03.2019 and his bill
finally given the rebate of Rs. 106595/- . There has been
no deficiency in service caused to the respondent.
4. The
ld.
District
Consumer
Commission
after
considering all the record and the submissions, held that
there has been deficiency in service on the part of the
appellant. The bill correction from April 2016 to Sept.
2018 is cancelled. The respondent has paid the bill till
August 2018 for consumption of units 1755 can not be
corrected. It is further held that, from Sept. 2018 to till
the disconnection of electricity supply, the consumption
should be assumed to be of 100 units. The ld. District
Consumer
Commission
further
directed
that
the
appellant should not claim any bill for the period till the
resumption of supply. The respondent shall be given Rs.
10,000/- for mental and
