State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1. Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Dayaldas Gurumukh Jayatwani on 26 August, 20101                           F.A. No..: 765-06




 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                                  Date of filing : 17.04.2006
                                                  Date of Order: 26.08.2010

FIRST APPEAL NO.765 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 64 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: DHULE

1. Maharashtra State Electricity
   Distribution Co. Ltd. Mumbai.

2. Executive Engineer,
   M.S.E.D.Co. Ltd., Urban Division,
   Sakri Road, Dhule.                         ...    Appellant

              -VERSUS-

     Dayaldas Gurumukh Jayatwani
     R/o. Room No.10, Kumar Nagar,
     Sakri Road, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.         ...     Respondent

        Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.Present: Adv. Shri. S. N. Tandale, for appellant.Adv. Shri. Q. I. Thakwani, for the respondent.:: ORAL ORDER ::Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member1.      Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L. Mumbai challenges in this
appeal, order passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhule in complaint
case No. 64/2004 on 14.03.2006.2.      Facts of the case are as under:Complainant Dayaldas Gurumukh Jayatwani R/o. Dhule is
consumer of M.S.E.D.C.L. He is having two electric meters by No.
9001140367 and 900016619. Both meters were installed in the house of
the complainant and supply was taken for domestic use. Complainant2                            F.A. No..: 765-06was regular in paying the electricity bill. On 17.02.2004 four unknown
persons entered in the house of complainant, though objected by family
members of the complainant and started to inspect the electric
connection and meters. It is told by them that, they are members of
flying squad of MSEDCL. Near about four hours they were inspecting the
house of complainant. Thereafter, complainant received bill of Rs.
2,80,705.70 for electric meter No. 9000140357 and bill of Rs. 4123.80
for meter No.900016619. Said bills do not bear the dates when they were
issued. Exorbitant use of units was shown in the said bills. On
17.02.2004 electric supply was disconnected by the appellant. Criminal
complaint for theft of electricity was also filed in Dhule City Police
Station, vide Crime No.21/04. It is alleged that, the meter were found
running slow and seal of one meter was found broken. On 26.02.2004
complainant approached to Dy. Executive Engineer and filed written
objection. Said written objection was replied by Dy. Executive Engineer
on 02.03.2004 through legal advisor. As complainant was threatened
about disconnection of his supply he was compelled to deposit 20 %
amount of the bill and accordingly consent terms were obtained on
stamp paper by the appellant. Thereafter, supply was restored. As the
complainant aggrieved by the said exorbitant bill he approached to
Forum for quashing of the said bills.3.    After receiving the notices of District Forum appellant/org.opponent appeared before the Forum. It is submitted by appellants that
as per the provision ofElectricity Act, Law officers of flying squad are
authorized to enter in the premises of the consumer and inspect the
electric connection and meters. At the time of inspection seals of meter
were found broken. This is offence therefore; criminal complaint was also
filed against the consumer. It is further submitted that complainant
himself issued the bond paper and accepted the incident of theft.4.    After hearing both the parties District Forum held that, the theft of
electricity by the complainant is not proved by the appellant therefore,3                            F.A. No..: 765-06District Forum cancelled both the bills respectively of Rs. 2,80,705/- and
Rs.   4,123/-.   District     Forum   also   directed   appellant   to   adjust
Rs. 60,000/- which were deposited by complainant for reconnection of
the supply in future bills.5.    Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order MSEDCL came in
appeal.6.    Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Adv. Shri.
S. N. Tandale, appeared for appellant and Shri. Q. I. Thakwani, appeared
for the respondent. It is submitted by Adv. Tandale that, house of
complainant was inspected by the members of flying squad; accordingly
spot inspection report was prepared. On the said report signature of
complainant was also taken. Complainant was present at the time of
spot inspection. Meter testing report was also prepared on 17.02.2004.
The said report is also signed by complainant. All the assessment is done
in presence of complainant therefore; he can not raise any objection
regarding the same. Complainant is estopped to take any objection as he
himself accepted the incident of theft and deposited Rs. 60,000/- as part
payment. Accordingly agreement was also prepared on oath and
complainant accepted the incident of theft. Bills were issued as per
provision therefore, it can not be said that bills issued were illegal.
Therefore, appeal be allowed.7.    Adv. Thakwani submitted that, without any notice employee of
MSEDCL entered in the house of complainant. They did not show their
identity card when asked for the same. It is further submitted that, copy
of the report of inspection was asked by the complainant to the officer of
the MSEDCL but, copy of report was not given to him. Inspection was
conducted on 17.02.2004 and immediately on the same day supply of
electricity was disconnected. No opportunity of hearing was given to the
complainant.     The officer of MSEDCL Mr. Chatekarande, filed the
affidavit before the District Forum. Complainant filed application before4                          F.A. No..: 765-06the Forum and asked the permission to cross examination the said
officer. But, Mr. Chafekarande did not appear for the cross-examination.
Therefore, his evidence can not be considered. Therefore, his affidavit can
not be relied upon. He therefore submitted that District Forum rightly
considered all the facts and cancelled the bills.8.    We heard both the counsels at length and perused the record. The
officers of flying squad inspected the electric connection and meters
installed in the house of complainant. Spot inspection report was
prepared but copy of said report was not supplied to the complainant.
Bills were issued to the complainant on 27.02.2004 wherein it is
mentioned that provisional bill subject to approval of competent
authority. But, electric supply was disconnected on 17.02.2004 i.e.
before issuing the bill to the complainant. No opportunity was given to
the complainant to deposit the amount or to make his grievance.Section-126of the Indian Electricity Act, Sub-clause-2 read as under:(2)   "The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the
person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in
such manner as may be prescribed.Sub-clause-3 & 4 read as under:(3)   The person, on whom a notice has been served under sub-section
(2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional
assessment before the assessing officer, who may, after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of
assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person.(4)   Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may,
accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the
licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order
upon him.5                          F.A. No..: 765-069.          If we consider the provision ofElectricity ActofSection-126it can
be held that, said procedure is not followed by the officers of MSEDCL in
the present case. Flying squad visited the house of complainant on
17.02.2004.           Electric   supply   of       complainant   was   disconnected
immediately after 17.02.2004. Previous bill issued on 27.02.2004
wherein it is mentioned that provisional bill subject to approval of
competent authority. Said bill also mentioned that temporary bill of
electricity theft for the period of three years which is also not permissible
as per provision ofElectricity Act. Applellant ought to have assessed the
bill after giving reasonable opportunity of hearig to the complainant.
Appellant did not follow the procedure laid down inSec. 126of
Electricity Act, 2003. It is certain that without following procedure laid
down inElectricity Act, bills were issued and supply was disconnected
immediately which is illegal. Mr. Chafekarande, who was member of
flying squad, filed his affidavit before the Forum. Complainant demanded
his cross-examination, but he did not make himself available for the
cross-examination by complainant. Therefore, adverse inference is to be
drawn against him. The evidence of Shri. Chafekarnde could not be read
in evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence regarding the theft of
electricity committed by complainant. In all the circumstances, we are
not inclined to interfere the order passed by District Forum. Hence, the

                                      O   R        D   E   R1.      Appeal is dismissed.2.      No order as to cost.3.      Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.(Mrs.Uma S. Bora)                                (S. G. Deshmukh)
           Member                                      Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar