M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Sudarshan

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 23.4.1997 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum) Indore in Complaint No. 62/92, by which District Forum directed the appellant to: (a) Pay interest at 18% for 9 months on the sum of Rs. 1.286/-within 30 days of the order; (b) Refund Rs. 1,344/- recovered in excess to respondent; and (c) Pay Rs. 500/- as costs in this case.

IN the appeal filed against this order the appellant has challenged the order of District Forum, on the grounds that as per rules they are empowered to recover money as per commercial tariff once a consumer was found to be using electricity for commercial purpose, while the agreement between appellant and respondent was for domestic one. Appellant has urged before us that the Panchanama drawn up on the day of sudden inspection is conclusive proof and no further proof was necessary as the document bears signature of respondent. Appellant has further submitted that rules do not permit payment of interest on deposits and also that same was refunded after due enquiry. Appellant prayed for setting aside the order of District Forum. Similar submission was made in the District Forum by appellant, who was opposite party there. Respondent who was complainant in District Forum, filed a counter affidavit in which she specifically denied that her daughter was running Beauty Parlour. She also denied that any "Panchanama" was made, at the time of inspection, it is in fact a "meter checking report" and not "Panchanama". She also submitted that appellant M.P.E.B. had no reason to keep the deposit for 9 months when it was made for a temporary connection for marriage of her daughter. District Forum after hearing both parties passed the order referred to in para 1 above.

Facts of the case not being germane to the disposal of this appeal are not being stated. We shall consider the points made in appeal vis-a- vis the order of District Forum. Having heard both parties and after careful perusal of record we are of the opinion that the appeal must be dismissed. Perusal of record reveals that what is being referred as ''Panchanama'' both in District Forum and appeal is not a ''Panchanama at all as is commonly understood. It is a meter checking report and in fact bears the above heading. It does not bear signature of any independent person and therefore, has no value. Alleged signature of the respondent has also been denied. Any bill sent on the basis of this report cannot be said to be fulfilling the requirement of law & procedure. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the reasoning employed by District Forum. As far as refund of deposits for temporary Connection is concerned, it is not disputed that amount was refunded after 9 months when it should not have taken 7 days. District Forum has held this action as amounting to deficiency in service and we agree with the finding.

FOR the reasons recorded in foregoing paragraphs, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Before parting with the case we have to observe that Field Officers of MPEB at the lower level are not only indifferent to needs of consumer, but have been extremely careless in defending in District Forum. We leave it to the wisdom of MPEB Authorities to take such action as they deem fit against these officers so that consumers in general get better treatment. Appeal dismissed.