PRATAP Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MSEDC ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner who is the owner of a restaurant by name, "fun-n-Food", for which he had obtained an electricity connection from the respondents. It was the case of the complainant that a regular meter was installed in the said premises, which was replaced by the officials of the respondent some time on 24. 12. 2002 with a CT meter. The complainant was not happy with this and this was brought to the notice of the respondent. Complaints were made by him relating to faulty meter but no action was taken. The first bill for the new meter for the period from 24. 12. 2002 to 31. 3. 2003 was shown at Zero. Second bill for the period from 31. 3. 2003 to 30. 4. 2003 showing consumption of 6545 units for Rs. 37,592 was issued, which was on the high side. The matter was taken up with the concerned Assistant Engineer. After some discussion, the petitioner paid Rs. 25,000 against the said bill of Rs. 37,592 on 3. 6. 2003 and complaint was lodged with the respondent. It was the case of the complainant that the meter was faulty and they had taken no care to rectify the defects which he has been bringing to the notice of the respondent from time and again. It is also apparent, that after an inspection of the premises of the petitioner was carried out, and meter was taken for testing, the test-report indicated tampering with the meter and its slow running by 93. 75% along with other observations that wires SI and Yandb Phase CT meter was found broken, and allegedly there is no current in Wire Y and B Phase. Based on these inspection reports a revised bill of Rs. 8,06,152 was raised but no detail of any kind whatsoever was forthcoming as to on what ground this bill is raised. When the matter was not getting settled between the parties, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, who dismissed the complaint on the point of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The order of the State Commission dated 13. 12. 2005 reads as follows: "heard Adv. S. Divedi for the appellant. Adv. Y. R. Dandige for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant making statement that he wants to withdraw the appeal with permission to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum constituted under Electricity Act, 2003. Allowed to with-draw with liberty to approach the new Forum constituted under Electricity Act, 2003. " (Emphasis supplied)

(3.) AFTER the withdrawal of the appeal from the State Commission, a complaint was filed before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. , Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur, who by its order dated 20. 2. 2006 disposed of the complaint, operative part of a detailed and lengthy order reads as follows: