AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Sahi, President Member
This dispute arises out of an allegation of incorrect billing and defective meter, as alleged by the complainant for the period referred to therein and therefore this deficiency in service on account of excessive billing was complained of before the District Commission in CC/376/2010. The complaint was decided on 02.05.2012 with a direction that the corrections in the bills shall be made and that shall be revised for the period from October, 2004 and up to the date of passing of the order.
In order to calculate the amount payable the District Commission calculated the consumption at an average rate of 400 units per month for the period October, 2004 till April, 2012. It was further directed that no interest or any other assessment or charges shall be levied. Further directions for adjustment of payments earlier made.
It was also mentioned that a detailed ledger account shall be issued to the complainant and if it is found that any amount is due the complainant should pay the same, but if the amount remains excessive the same shall be adjusted in future bills.
The Commission further directed that bills should be issued in future only on the basis of recorded meter readings. It was held that the consumer personal ledger had not been issued which shall be done and a cost of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded.
The respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited did not file any appeal against the said order, but the complainant aggrieved by the average of billing by the District Commission file an appeal no. 404 of 2012. The said appeal was however dismissed on 03.05.2013.
It was held that the calculations drawn by the District Commission for billing the complainant should be on an average of 400 units per month. This seems to have been accepted by the electricity department.
Aggrieved, the complainant has come up contending that the average has been incorrectly calculated, in as much as, the excessive billing by the electricity department for a period of five months has been wrongly included while proceeding to calculate the average and therefore if the billing of the said initial months from October, 2004 to July, 2005 is excluded then the average will stand considerably reduced, hence, the complaint should be allowed in its entirety and the impugned order should be set aside to that extent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention to the chart appended at page 57 of the paper book and has urged that the excessive billing for the month of December, 2004 and January, 2005 was 7,383 units which have no foundation. Similarly, the readings for February, 2005 and March, 2005 was 1784 units. In April, 2005 and May, 2005 was 1414 units and in June, 2005 and July, 2005 was 1007 units, were all excessive and therefore these readings for the purpose of calculation of average should be excluded.
He submits that the bills after the new meter was installed indicates the average readings, which are far below and are the correct readings, as is evident from the chart that has been placed on record by the respondents themselves. It is therefore submitted that the average ought to have been calculated by excluding this disputed period of billing and should be only on the basis of consumption after the new meter had been installed.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent however urged that the petitioner had been called upon by this Commission to file the Consumer Personal Ledger that has been brought on record, through IA/20743/2017 dated 23.12.2017 and as a matter fact, the said ledger reflects the correct units and the charges that are leviable and hence so far as the electricity department is concerned, it cannot be saddled with any subsidised rates of consumption charges or lesser then what has been awarded. He however submits that even though the electricity department has not filed any appeal against the order of the District Commission in order to close the controversy, and even otherwise not finding it financially feasible to carry the litigation further, yet there does not seem to be any error in the average billing methodology suggested by the District Commission, which may not be legally tenable, but in order to end the dispute the matter should be closed. He contends that there is no rule or any other possible method available for an average calculation as directed by the District Commission as such in order to draw a curtain to the proceedings, the State Commission very rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
In order to resolve this issue which appears to be a factual controversy on the method of calculating the average billing instead of exercising our revisional jurisdiction on a question of fact, we find it appropriate that the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission can be invoked to resolve this issue as the order of the District Commission had attained finality as against the Electricity department in terms of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Nonetheless, the error which is being pointed out by the petitioner is on the strength of the chart at annexure P-5, which is extracted herein under:
Meter No.
Month/s concerned
Bill issued in month
Units consumption as per CPL
Bill if Paid
900012822
October & November 2004
Dec-04
Paid on 17/2/05
900012822
December 2004 & January 2005
Feb-05
Disputed bill not paid but amounts deposited on adhoc basis as mentioned in complaint Para NO. 5 totalling Rs.88240/- on various dates as advised by M.S.E.B.
900012822
February & March 2005
Apr-05
900012822
April & May 2005
June-05
900012822
June & July 2005
Aug-05
1007
90001318769
Meter changed due to complaint dt. 23/4/05 of the complainant and new meter installed
August & September 2005
Oct-05
Practice of issuing the bills for two months was for up to August and September 2005 thereafter from November 2005 onwards monthly bills are issued.
eter No.
Month/s concerned
Bill issued in month
Units consumption as per CPL
Bill if Paid
October & November 2004
Dec-04
Paid on 17/2/05
900012822
December 2004 & January 2005
Feb-05
Disputed bill not paid but amounts deposited on adhoc basis as mentioned in complaint Para NO. 5 totalling Rs.88240/- on various dates as advised by M.S.E.B.
900012822
February & March 2005
Apr-05
900012822
April & May 2005
June-05
900012822
June & July 2005
Aug-05
1007
90001318769
Meter changed due to complaint dt. 23/4/05 of the complainant and new meter installed
August & September 2005
Oct-05
Practice of issuing the bills for two months was for up to August and September 2005 thereafter from November 2005 onwards monthly bills are issued.
90001318769 Oct-05 Nov-05 301
90001318769 Nov-05 Dec-05 185
90001318769 Dec-05 Jan-06 216
90001318769 Jan-06 Feb-06 144
90001318769 Feb-06 Mar-06 173
90001318769 Mar-06 Apr-06 250
90001318769 Apr-06 May-06 223
90001318769 Jun-06 Jul-06 215
90001318769 Jul-06 Aug-06 170
90001318769 Aug-06 Sep-06 155
90001318769 Sep-06 Oct-06 278
90001318769 Oct-06 Nov-06 149
90001318769 Nov-06 Dec-06 268
90001318769 Dec-06 Jan-07 101
90001318769 Jan-07 Feb-07 131
90001318769 Feb-07 Mar-07 161
90001318769 Mar-07 Apr-07 247
90001318769 Apr-07 May-07 191
90001318769 May-07 Jun-07 200
90001318769 Jun-07 Jul-07 207
90001318769 Jul-07 Aug-07 190
90001318769 Aug-07 Sep-07 480
90001318769 Sep-07 Oct-07 153
90001318769 Oct-07 Nov-07 131
90001318769 Nov-07 Dec-07 146
90001318769 Dec-07 Jan-08 137
90001318769 Jan-08 Feb-08 294
90001318769 Feb-08 Mar-08 279
90001318769 Mar-08 Apr-08 155
90001318769 Apr-08 May-08 317
90001318769 May-08 Jun-08 420
90001318769 Jun-08 Jul-08 202
90001318769 Jul-08 Aug-08 164
90001318769 Aug-08 Sep-08 172
90001318769 Sep-08 Oct-08 158
90/01318769 Oct-08 Nov-08 140
90/01318769 Nov-08 Dec-08 171
90/01318769 Dec-08 Jan-09 168
90/01318769 Jan-09 Feb-09 240
90/01318769 Feb-09 Mar-09 40
90/01318769 Mar-09 Apr-09 298
90/01318769 Apr-09 May-09 162
90/01318769 May-09 Jun-09 206
90/01318769 Jun-09 Jul-09 264
90/01318769 Jul-09 Aug-09 145
90/01318769 Aug-09 Sep-09 190
90/01318769 Sep-09 Oct-09 193
90/01318769 Oct-09 Nov-09 135
90/01318769 Nov-09 Dec-09 208
90/01318769 Dec-09 Jan-10 189
90/01318769 Jan-10 Feb-10 189
90/01318769 Feb-10 Mar-10 468
90/01318769 Mar-10 Apr-10 221
90/01318769 Apr-10 May-10 139
90/01318769 May-10 Jun-10 279
90/01318769 Jun-10 Jul-10 0
90/01318769 Jul-10 Aug-10 173
90/01318769 Aug-10 Sep-10 161
90/01318769 Sep-10 Oct-10 134
90/01318769 Oct-10 Nov-10 194
90/01318769 Nov-10 Dec-10 194
76/14654590 Dec-10 Jan-11 570
76/14654590 Jan-11 Feb-11 141
76/14654590 Feb-11 Mar-11 174
76/14654590 Mar-11 Apr-11 140
76/14654590 Apr-11 May-11 288
76/14654590 May-11 Jun-11 148
76/14654590 Jun-11 Jul-11 300
76/14654590 Jul-11 Aug-11 259
76/14654590 Aug-11 Sep-11 183
76/14654590 Sep-11 Oct-11 264
76/14654590 Oct-11 Nov-11 122
76/14654590 Nov-11 Dec-11 182
76/14654590 Dec-11 Jan-12 154
76/14654590 Jan-12 Feb-12 134
76/14654590 Feb-12 Mar-12 167
76/14654590 Mar-12 Apr-12 225
76/14654590 Apr-12 May-12 100
76/14654590 May-12 June-12 234
28759
This chart is a calculation on the consumption of 91 months which comes to average of 314.05 units per month. Another chart has been placed on record, which is annexure P-6, where the calculation is on the strength of 81 months and the average indicated is 203.65 units per month.
The contention is that the complainant had cleared up the dues up to December 2004. It is further submitted that the bill of Rs.23930/- dated 03.03.2005 received for January and February was in dispute and was incorrect as it was based on a defective meter reading that was excessively high as indicated above. It is for this reason that the meter was changed and consequently to include the number of units which were recorded during the disputed period is erroneous and should be excluded.
This factual controversy therefore need not be gone into by this Commission and it appears that the State Commission did not appreciate the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner but instead of probing this contention, simply confirmed the order passed by the District Commission without deciding this issue. We therefore find it expedient and in the interest of justice that for the purpose of ascertaining as to the correct method of average calculation, the method deserves to be gone into in the light of the submissions that have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner indicated hereinabove.
In the wake of the aforesaid facts and reasons given above, we set aside the appellate order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai and remand the matter back to the State Commission for decision afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove preferably within six months of this order being conveyed to the State Commission. The petitioner is further directed to file a copy of the consumer personal ledger that has been filed before this Commission through IA/20743/2017, before the State Commission along with a copy of the two charts referred to hereinabove for its appreciation and final orders.
The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 15.10.2024.