CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.

1177 OF 2007 Date of filing : 20/09/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.213 OF 2006 Date of order : 14/02/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SATARA @ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1589/2007 Mr.Balasaheb Shankarrao Jagtap R/o.At Post Surawadi, Tal.Phaltan Dist.Satara ..Appellant/org.complainant V/s. Maharashtra State Electric Supply Ltd. Phaltan through its Dy.Engineer Maahrashtra State Electric Supply Ltd. Tal.Phaltan, Dist.Satara ..Respondent/org.O.P. Corum: Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member Present: Mr.R.P.Bhosale -Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.R.Mahagaonkar-Advocate for the respondent : ORAL ORDER: Per Justice Mr.B.B.Vagyani, Honble President This appeal filed by original complainant in consumer complaint no.213/06 is directed against the dismissal order dated 23/8/07 passed by District Consumer Forum, Satara. District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency on the part of MSEDCo. and consequently dismissed the complaint. We heard Mr.R.P.Bhosale-Advocate for the appellant/org.complainant and Mr.R.R.Mahagaonkar-Advocate for the respondent/org.O.P. Ld.Advocate Mr.Bhosale for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Forum below did not at all consider the main issue involved in the complaint in the light of explanation given by Assistant Accountant MSEDCo. Phaltan with regard to formula for electric unit consumed. We examined the judgement to find out as to whether issue with regard to wrong calculation of consumption units is properly dealt with by the District Consumer Forum in the light of formula for electric unit consumed. Forum below unnecessarily attached too much importance to Consumer Personal Ledger. The learned Advocate Shri Bhosale pointed out wrong entries in CPL. Forum below did not consider properly the main grievance raised by the complainant in his complaint.

Complainant has made serious grievance about bill dated 31/7/06. This is the disputed bill by which MSEDC asked the consumer to pay Rs.45,450/-. We carefully perused the entries in the bill. The last reading was taken on 1/4/06. At that time, meter showed 34160 as consumed units. Current reading was taken on 30/6/06 and at that time, meter showed 74430 as consumed units. Accordingly in the bill, consumed units are shown to the extent of 40270. The consumer has made serious grievance with regard to the manner and mode of charging of consumed units. Assistant Accountant of MSEDCo. placed on record the formula for electric unit consumed. As per formula, the actual consumption of units is to be worked out. It is admitted fact that the complainant has possessed meter of 10 HP. If 10 HP meter is used for 24 hours, the consumption is as follows:1.46 kw x 24 hours = 186.24 units. Consumption of electricity for one month would be as follows:As per formula given by Assistant Accountant of MSEDCo. 186.24 x 30 = 5587.20. Disputed bill dated 31/7/06 is for period of 3 months. As per formula for electric unit consumed provided by Assistant Accountant of MSEDCo. consumption of electricity for 3 months would be 16761 units. If method of calculation for consumed units as provided in the formula is taken into consideration, the figure 40270 in the disputed bill is obviously wrong. It should be 16761. It is to be noted that there is load shading for considerable long time. In case of load shading, it is difficult to start the electric meter installed on the well. In the formula provided by Assistant Accountant of MSEDC presuming running of 10 HP Meter continuously for 24 hours and on that presumption, method of calculation of consumed units is provided. Even as per formula, the consumed unit comes to 16761. We therefore, hold that the disputed bill dated 31/7/06 is apparently wrong. Wrong figure of consumed units is shown and on the basis of wrong bill, the complainant was forced to pay huge amount of Rs.45,450/-. Issuing wrong bill is a deficiency in service. Forum below did not properly consider the formula for electric unit consumed and has dismissed the complaint. Order of dismissal is therefore erroneous. In the result, we pass following order:ORDER 1. Appeal is partly allowed with cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. Complaint is partly allowed. 3. Figure of consumption of unit i.e.40270 in the disputed bill dated 31/7/06 is to be

read as 16761. MSEDCo. is accordingly directed to rectify the disputed bill dated 31/7/06 and issue fresh bill to the complainant. 4. Misc.application stands disposed of. 5. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. 6. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

(S.P.Lale) Member Ms.

(B.B.Vagyani) President