Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 1381 of 2010

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution

Division (1), Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran

Nigam Ltd., Sikandara, Agra.                              …Appellant.                                                                         

Hari Om s/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad,

R/o Kasba, Kheragarh, Agra.                          .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Mohan Agarwal, Advocate for appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date  1.4.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the District Forum-II, Agra in complaint case no.243 of 2009.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment dated 12.1.2010 is erroneous and is the result of misconception and is liable to be set aside. On the basis of MRI of the respondent’s meter it reveals that the respondent used the excess load from time to time than the sanctioned one and on that basis an amount of Rs.1240.85 was levied as excess load penalty against the respondent, Rs.11,949.30 was levied as low power factory penalty, total penalty imposed against the respondent is Rs.13,190.00 on the basis of MRI report. He respondent is required to maintain .85 power factor in each billing. A notice was sent to the respondent but who instead of depositing the penalty filed the said complaint. There was

(2)

no deficiency and dispute was not consumer dispute. The respondent did not have any cause of action for consumer dispute. The finding of the ld. Forum-II, Agra that the load of the respondent should be checked by check meter is erroneous. So, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may please to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.  

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Mohan Agarwal.  None appeared for the respondent. We have perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record. 

          We have perused the judgment of the ld. Forum. The complainant is an electricity consumer having meter. There is no over load on his premises. The meter was checked many times but no irregularity ever found in his premises. No MRI has ever done before him. He was regularly paying electricity bill but inspite of it a bill has been sent showing excess load. The complainant has many times put the grievance before the opposite parties but nothing has happened.

          The complainant was never provided MRI report nor he was informed about MRI test. The ld. Forum has discussed all the aspects and found that the demand notice is liable to be dismissed.

          There is some voltage problem in the complainant’s residence and it has not been corrected by the opposite parties. The demand notice has wrongly been sent to the complainant as per the ld. District Forum. It was the duty of the opposite party to maintain electricity flow correctly and regularly in all the three phases which they could not provide.

(3)

The demand notice has been sent on MRI report, which has been taken without informing the complainant, so this has no sanctity in the eye of law. No details have been given to the complainant or MRI report has been given to the complainant. So, we are of the view that the judgment pronounced by the ld. District Forum is correct and it needs no interference by t