1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4174/2007 (M/s Anand Melting Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS M.S.E.D.C.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.A. Mehadia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Deshpande, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum on 31.01.2007 as well as the order passed by the Ombudsman on 05.06.2007 rejecting a part of the relief sought by the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. It is the case of the petitioner Industry that a faulty meter was installed by the respondent and since an electric bill on the basis of an incorrect reading was supplied to the petitioner, first complaint in that regard was made by the petitioner on 08.02.2006. Again on 13.08.2006, 2 yet another complaint of abnormal meter reading was made by the petitioner. On 19.08.2006, a new meter was installed by the respondent by replacing the old one. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had applied to the authorities under the Right to Information Act and it is apparent from letter dated 14.09.2006 that there was a manufacturing defect in some of the meters and the petitioner's meter was one of them. This communication was addressed by the manufacturer to the respondent. An application was filed by the petitioner before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to revise the Energy Bill for the month of August-2006 and further direct the respondent to refund, the excess amount charged, to the petitioner along with interest. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent to compensate the petitioner for 3 the direct losses of petitioner like salaries & wages payment, interest paid to the Bank, etc. during the closure period from 19.09.2006. Certain other reliefs were also sought by the petitioner. On hearing the petitioner and the respondent, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum granted one of the prayers made by the petitioner and directed the respondent to revise the Energy Bill for the month of August-2006. Apart from this claim, no other claim of the petitioner was granted by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman seeking the reliefs which were denied to him by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The Ombudsman, however, by the order dated 05.06.2007, dismissed the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged both the orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order passed by 4 the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman. Both the authorities have considered the facts and the circumstances of the case to hold that the petitioner was only entitled to a revision of the Energy Bill for the month of August-2006. Some of the other reliefs were denied to the petitioner as, according to the authorities, the petitioner had made the complaint/representation for the first time on 13.08.2006 and had failed to prove that he had made a complaint on 08.02.2006. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE