Tribunals and Commissions

Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs SURESHCHANDRA PANNALAL JAIN

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 26 March 2003 · Citation: 2003 4 CPJ 469

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S.Rane , V.K.Data J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 296 words
1.

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available before us and on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties. Respondent who was noticed earlier before admission is represented today by his Advocate. (for brevity''s sake appellants hereinafter is referred to as "Electricity Board" and respondent as "Complainant").

2.

ELECTRICITY Board has challenged the order dated 21.3.2002 passed by District Forum Jalna holding it deficient in the matter of raising and issuing bill upon the complainant in respect of consumption of the electricity supply to him. The bill in question was raised, according to the ELECTRICITY Board with the allegation that the complainant was involved in a power theft in common parlance referred to as S.L.C. "Service Line Consumption" and which fact was detected in the surprise inspection of its flying squad. The complainant/consumer strongly disputed and denied raising of bill, as also allegation made and approached the District Forum. Before the District Forum, the Electricity Board did not place on record the alleged report of its flying squad nor the affidavit of the concerned officer forming part of the squad and in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the District Forum has recorded the same.

Since there was no credible material made available by the Electricity Board justifying their action of raising the bill, that the District Forum proceeded to allow the claim of the complainant holding that the bill raised was unjustified and the bill in question was quashed. In view of this factual situation, no fault could be found with the order of the District Forum impugned in this appeal.

3.

APPEAL stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order to be furnished to the parties. APPEAL dismissed.