BEST UNDERTAKING Vs. NAVANIT O RAITHATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of order/award dated 11.8.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 67/2004, Shri Navanit O. Raithatha v. The Chief Engineer, BEST Undertaking by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum ( Forum below in short).

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , respondent/org. com -plainant is a consumer and energy supply made to him installing electric meter bearing No. 0808099. According to the complainant energy bill for the period 8.8.2002 to 10.10.2002 was suddenly shoot up. Complainant paid the bill, but, asked for particulars for sudden rise in the amount of the bill from the opposite party. These particulars were not given promptly and therefore, alleging deficiency in service on that count, complainant filed this consumer complaint. Forum below allowed the complaint and granted Rs. 10,000 as compensation and feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P. preferred this appeal.

(3.) WE heard Mr. A.B. Ketkar, Advocate for the appellant/org. O.P. and Mr. Vasant Ambekar, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. Written arguments of respondent taken on record. It is revealed from the record on the basis of undisputed facts that when complainant raised a dispute of sudden rise in the energy bill after paying the said bill, appellant got inspected the meter on three occasions at intervals on 21.3.2003, 22.7.2003 and 5.11.2003. The meter was found without any fault and the fact was accordingly informed to the complainant on 7.4.2003 and 9.9.2003. Inspection of the meter was also carried out on 5.11.2003 in presence of representative of the complainant and said inspection report is also placed on record. Complainant was also given information as to how suddenly enhanced energy consumption bill was sent pointing out to him about incorrect figure of the energy consumption mentioned in the earlier bill. Since the bill was properly sent, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Just claiming that the particulars were supplied late, correctness of which the complainant also does not dispute, it will not amount to any deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Forum below as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, took a perverse view of the facts and evidence led and driven itself at a wrong conclusion. The impugned order/award cannot be supported in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order: