SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, M.S.E.D.C.L. AND ORS. Vs. SADHANA KISHOR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani in C.C. No. 77/2011 whereby the complaint is partly allowed by holding opponent/appellant as liable for deficiency in service. For better understanding appellant who are officials of MSEDCL are hereinafter jointly termed as "opponent MSEDCL" and respondent as "complainant". The factual aspects of this case in a nutshell are that, the complainant had obtained domestic electric connection from opponent MSEDCL as on 30.9.1998 and her consumer number is 532530054201 (old number is 5420). It is the contention of complainant that up to the year 1999 electric bills were regularly paid. However, since then opponent MSEDCL started giving bills of RNA (Reading not available), locked, average, etc. and therefore she did not pay electric bills and finally opponent MSEDCL issued bill for the month of March, 2011 for amount of Rs. 3,50,810 which included actual amount of bill Rs. 1,60,000 and amount of interest at Rs. 1,86,521.30. It was, therefore, contended that the amount of interest is more than the principal amount of electric charges towards the electric consumption by the complainant. Complainant therefore filed complaint before District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opponent MSEDCL to cancel all the electric bills issued after 1999 including bill dated 8.3.2011 amounting to Rs. 3,50,810 and to issue revised bills without charging interest or penal charges, etc. and not to disconnect the electric supply, etc. She had also sought compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,500 towards cost of the complaint.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by said judgment and order present appeal is filed by opponent MSEDCL which came to be finally heard on 24.3.2015. Adv. Sanjay Mundhe for appellant and Advocate U.A. Khekale for complainant were present. Both the Counsel have submitted written notes of argument. We heard Counsel appearing for both parties finally and appeal is reserved for judgment.

(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the record containing copies of complaint, electricity bills produced by complainant, impugned judgment and order, appeal memo and written notes of argument submitted by Counsel for both the parties and other documents specially CPL submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Sanjay Mundhe for appellant.