State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Executive Engineer vs V A Vasudevaraju on 1 April, 2026
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT PUDUCHERRY
Dated this the 1st day of April 2026
FIRST APPEAL No.09/2024
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
2. Secretary(Electricity),
Govt. of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3. Superintending Engineer-I,
Electricity Department, Puducherry.
4. Executive Engineer-I,
Electricity Department,
Perumal Koil Street, Puducherry.
5. Assistant Engineer-Town II,
Electricity Department,
Perumal Koiil Street, Puducherry.
6. Junior Engineer,
Electricity Department,
Venkata Nagar, Puducherry.
7. The Junior Accounts Officer/Revenue-I,
Electricity Department, Puducherry. .. Appellants
Vs
1. V.A.Vasudevaraju (died)
Rep. by his Legal Representatives.
The respondents 2 to 5
2. V.Suseeladevi, W/o. Vasudevaraju
3. V.Shanthi, D/o.Vasudevraju.
4. V.Hemalatha, D/o.Vasudevaraju
5.V.Arumugam, S/o.Vasudevaraju
2
The respondents 2 to 5 are residing
At "Valli Illam", No.5, Sixth Cross,
Brindavanam, Puducherry. ... Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Puducherry in CC No.18/2016 dated 22.09.2023)
CC No.18/2016
V.A.Vasudevaraju
"Valli Illam"
5, SixthCross Street,
Brindavan, Puducherry-605013 .. Complainant
Vs
1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. Secretary(Electricity),
Govt. of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3. Superintending Engineer-I,
Electricity Department,
Puducherry.
4. Executive Engineer-I,
Electricity Department,
Perumal Koil Street,
Puducherry.
5. Assistant Engineer-Town
II, Electricity Department,
Perumal Koiil Street,
Puducherry.
6. Junior Engineer,
Electricity Department,
Venkata Nagar, Puducherry. .. Opposite Parties
1
(Memorandum of Appeal amended as per order in M.A.No.26/2025, dt.09.07.2025)
BEFORE:
DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU,
PRESIDING MEMBER
TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Thiru.S.Sridhar, Government Pleader
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru.S.Vimal, Advocate
O R D E R
(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member) This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (District Commission in short hereafter) in CC No.18 of 2016 wherein the District Commission found the services of the appellant herein (Electricity Department, Puducherry) to be deficient and awarded compensation. The complaint was filed by V.A. Vasudevaraju, a consumer of the Electricity Department in Puducherry, following a series of billing disputes and service failures that began in 2011.
The narrative of his complaint is as follows:
2. The issue originated when the complainant received abnormally high monthly energy bills for April 2011, July 2012, and August 2012, which amounted to Rs. 2
3,583, Rs. 33,547, and Rs. 87,724, respectively. Despite sending multiple written representations via speed post to various officials in the Electricity Department requesting bill revisions, he received no corrective action or formal reply. Instead, in October 2012, the department sent him a brief letter demanding a payment of Rs.85,002/- without providing any itemized details.
3. The complainant contended that the department failed in its duty to maintain and replace defective electricity meters promptly. He further alleged that while the department refused to correct the disputed bills, they also followed a practice of refusing to accept payments for subsequent normal monthly bills until the disputed arrears were cleared. This cycle led the department to resort to removing his fuse and disconnecting his power three times without notice, which the complainant viewed as an attempt to force payment while the dispute was still pending.
4. Before approaching the Consumer Commission, the complainant had filed a case with the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) in 2013. The Forum ruled in his favor, directing the department to drop a claim for Rs. 49,900 and issue corrected bills. However, the complainant alleged that instead of returning this money to him, the department adjusted the amount toward future monthly bills without his consent. Additionally, the department continued to collect "Belated Payment Surcharges" (BPSC), which the complainant argued was unjustified because the payment delays were caused by the department's own refusal to issue correct bills and accept regular payments.
3
5. The complainant, a reputable senior citizen and a retired IAS officer, stated that these actions caused him significant mental agony for five years and damaged his reputation in his neighborhood due to the repeated disconnections. Consequently, he sought the following reliefs:
1.Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation.
2.Replacement of defective meters and issuance of prompt, correct bills.
3.Penal interest on the Rs. 49,900 held by the department without his approval.
4.The return of unjustified belated payment surcharges and reimbursement of litigation costs.
6. In response to the complaint, the Electricity Department (the opposite parties) presented several arguments justifying their actions and questioning the legal maintainability of the case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
7. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Puducherry ruled that the department had committed a deficiency in service.
The Electricity Department was ordered to:
1.Pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, which caused "physical hardships and mental agony" to the complainant from 2011 onwards.
2.Pay Rs. 10,000 toward litigation costs, specifically noting the complainant's "ripe old age" as a super senior citizen.
3.Comply with these directions within 30 days of receiving the judgment. 4
8. The Electricity Department has challenged this order mainly on the following grounds
1. The order of the District Commission is against the law, evidence and probabilities of the case.
2. The District Commission failed to note that the complainant had abstained from entering into the witness box and test the veracity of his complaint.
3. The complaint is a time barred one. The question of limitation need not be set up as a plea.
4. The District Commission failed to consider the finding of the CGRF that the complainant had unauthorisedly installed rotary switch for uninterrupted power supply making himself an unauthorised user as per the JERC Electricity supply code, 2010 and liable for twice the tariff as per Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003.He has violated Rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956.He is liable to be prosecuted under section 146 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003.
5. The respondent failed to remove the rotary switch even after direction by the CGRF while disposing the complaint no 22/2013.
6. CGRF nowhere in its order observed that the appellants were deficient in service. The calculation of electricity charges made on the basis of the struck up meter had to be revised as testing revealed that the meter was not stuck up but sluggish. It is a mistake in calculation and is not a deficiency in service. 5
7. The complainant was aware of the struck up meter in July 2007 itself but had not made any complaint till March 2011. Only for the bill of April 2011, he raised objections on 10.09.2012.
8. The respondent cannot claim ignorance of law.
9. The respondent has not made any claim that the dept failed to replace the defective meter in spite of his repeated demands which culminated in the issue of excessive bills, mental agony.
10. The question of issuing excess bill for the period Feb 2012 to December 2012 does not arise because the meters were replaced and tested in the presence of the respondent and claim of excess billing was negatived by the CGRF.
11. District Commission formed wrong opinion that the disconnection done three times without notice added to mental agony and found it to be deficiency in service. These findings are contrary to clause 54 and 55 of Terms and Conditions of service of the supply of Electricity and Sec 56 of Indian Electricity Act 2003.Rules envisage disconnection of electricity if the bills are not paid.
12. The respondent abstained from paying charges from March 2011 to September 2012.
13. Finding of District Commission that representations made to the SE dated 10.09.2012 and 08.10.2012 were not replied constituting deficiency is not correct since they were duly replied on 17.12.2012 and another letter was sent on 29.01.2013.
6
14. District Commission concluded wrongly that CGRF partly allowed the complaint which itself constitutes deficiency whereas CGRF only directed to revise the billing after finding that the 3rd meter was running sluggishly and was not stuck.
15. The respondent was consuming more power than the sanctioned load that too in an unbalanced manner.
16. He cannot pursue a cause of action which arises out of his own illegal act and claim deficiency
9. In their written arguments the Appellant reiterated the main grounds of appeal and stated that
i) District Commission did not record any satisfaction regarding sufficient cause for condonation.
ii) Findings of CGRF were not considered
iii) CGRF had already adjudicated the technical aspects. District Commission can not disregard such findings without reasons.
iv) The respondent had installed a rotary switch illegally for uninterrupted power supply
v) Respondent failed to pay even uninterrupted charges from March 2011 to September 2012.for over 18 months.
vi) Representations or correspondences do not exempt from payment.
vii) Disconnection due to non-payment is not a deficiency in service but a statutory obligation.
7
viii) No proof of mental agony was given.
10. In its written arguments the respondent stated that the ground of barred by limitation was not raised before the District Commission. Hence cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. Cause of action arose when the respondent received abnormal bills and when various correspondences were made with the appellant and when on 25.06.2013 CGRF passed an order and on 04.02.2015 with continuing cause of action approached the District Commission. Even though the CGRF gave a finding of unauthorised installation, the quantum of imbalance caused by such equipment is not given. The opposite party failed to take timely action for the replacement of the sluggish meter despite reporting by the respondent. Mandatory notice before disconnection of service as contemplated under Sec 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 and clause 9.1 of chapter 9 of JERC Electricity supply code regulations ,2010 was not given. Failed to refund the excess amount of Rs 48,900 by citing Govt order dated 19.04.1993 passed under Electricity Supply Act 1948 which is no more a good law having been replaced by the Electricity Act 2003.
11. Perused the documents on record.
The issues for determination are
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the actions of the Electricity Department in respect of the Consumer/ respondent constitute deficiency in service as held by the District Commission or not?
8Point No.1 Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
12. First ground on which the appeal has been made is that the complaint was filed beyond the period of two years of limitation prescribed and the District Commission should have rejected on this ground alone even if the issue was not set up as a plea.
13. From the records it is seen that the complaint was initially filed on 05.02.2015 and it was dismissed as not maintainable without being numbered by the District Commission. The complainant filed Revision Petition before the State Commission,Puducherry and the RP was allowed vide order dated 28.04.2016 with directions to the District Commission to number the complaint and dispose on merits. Thus the complaint was taken on file and came to be numbered as CC No.18 of 2016. It is seen that the complainant was sending letters to the authorities in the Electricity Department regarding the excess billing issue and he approached the CGRF for relief and the last such letter seeking remedial action /compensation from the Electricity Department was sent on 16.12.2014. The complaint was filed on 05.02.2015 as seen earlier. Thus the complaint has been filed within the period prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act 2019 .Hence the allegation of the appellant that the complaint was not filed within two years is not correct Point No.2:Whether the actions of the Electricity Department in respect of the Consumer/ respondent constitute deficiency in service as held by the District Commission or not ?
14. The District Commission has found the appellant /op to be deficient in the following terms."If the opposite parties were vigilant and proactive and had 9 responded to the complainant within a proper and reasonable time the complainant would not have faced exorbitant bills and all the subsequent issues faced by the complainant is a consequence of the opposite parties failure to address the grievance in a time bound manner. This is nothing but deficiency in service and the complainant was put to mental and physical hardship. It is only due to their deficiency in service in not timely replacing the defective meters that they have issued exorbitant bills to the complainant'' .
15. The District Commission has found the services rendered by the Appellant to be deficient mainly on two findings.
1. The District Commission found "Hence it is very clear from Ex.C8 order that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not providing timely service of the meter which resulted in issuing the exorbitant bills."
16. Ex. C8 is the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Puducherry, in consumer case no 22 of 2013 in the complaint filed by the respondent herein Shri Vasudevaraju alleging excess billing and the CGRF allowed the complaint partly. The appellant claims that the CGRF nowhere in its order has observed that the appellant were deficient in service for claiming the bill of Rs 87,724/- but admits that there was mistake in billing. Relevant portions in the grounds of appeal are reproduced below:
"Since, on the testing of the said meter, it was found running sluggishly, the calculation arrived at on the presumption of the struck up condition of the meter, had to be dropped and re calculation to be done after ascertaining the error in running of 10 the meter for the assessment period. Therefore, the calculation arrived at is a mistake, not a deficient service as found by the Hon'ble District Forum."
17. Even though the CGRF may not have observed in specific wordings that the appellant was deficient, the fact remains as admitted by appellant himself in the extract given above that the calculation was made incorrect and department was asked to drop claim for Rs 48,900/- and issue separate bill after correction of errors reported by lab. This shows that the bills were originally issued wrongly which definitely constitutes deficiency and the efforts of the complainant for rectification by taking it up at the level of the Head of the Department also did not yield required results and he had to approach the Consumer forum of the Department for remedy.
18. The counsel for the respondent quotes chapter 8 clause 8.1 (15). As per this regulation it is the duty of the meter reader to note down the defective /stopped meter and file a report to the concerned officer for necessary action. Further as per chapter 7 clause 7.5 2 ii, in case the meter is found fast or slow the meter shall be replaced by a new meter within 15 days. Contrary to these provisions, the Department tried to shift the blame on the complainant for non intimation of the malfunctioning meter which is condemned. The CGRF has also observed that the meter reader has not physically noted the meter reading or wrongly noted the reading.
19. From all these we have no hesitation in concluding that the services of the Electricity Department was definitely deficient as far as excess billing is concerned.
20. The Department has also taken a stand that the meters will be replaced subject to availability. We feel that the department can not adopt this stand and it shall be the 11 endeavour of the department to have sufficient stock of the meters which is a crucial instrument for providing complaint free services to the public.
21. It is also seen that the complainant addressed letters on 10.09.2012 and 8.10.12 to the authorities in the Electricity Department complaining about excess billing. The department says they were replied on 17.12.2012 but no such letter has been marked by them. Further, the contents of the replies are also a matter of concern. For example in the letter dated nil received on 05.10.2012, the complainant is asked to pay Rs.85,002/- with scanty particulars.
22. The details are reproduced below :
" I am to state that based on the above report, the c.c.bill in respect of Policy No. 05-22-02-0148/A2 has been revised.
The amount payable after revision is Rs. 85,002/- (Rupees eighty five thousand and two only). The break-up is as follows:
C.C. Charge for July 2012 - Rs. 2,183/-
Arrears upto June 2012 - Rs. 80,448/-
BPSC - Rs. 2,366/-
SC - Rs. 5/-
------------------
Total - Rs. 85,002/-
------------------
Kindly arrange to pay the above amount immediately to avoid disconnection of power supply."
Sd/ Junior Accounts Officer
23. Clear details as to how the figures were arrived at ought to have been given instead of cryptic letters. The concerns raised regarding fabricated figures also could have been addressed by proper communication.
12
24. If the department representative had taken prompt action on noticing the sluggish meter or at least in response to the letters addressed to the authorities ,the excess billing would not have blown up.The department said in its defence that the letter was not addressed to the correct person/authority and hence the delay occurred. It is seen that the letter was addressed to the SE 1 who is the head of the department which cannot be faulted. The department should place suitable mechanisms to ensure that such letters reach the concerned division /sub division person and necessary action is taken . Persons to be addressed for various complaints should be given in the web site of the department geographical jurisdiction wise along with persons to be approached in case of non resolution of the issue.
25. Now we come to the issue of disconnection of electricity supply.
The District Commission found that the action of the opposite parties in resorting to disconnection without notice three times also added more agonies to the complainant and action of the appellant/ opposite party in resorting to disconnection of electricity without settling his dispute or taking any corrective actions when the complainant was in constant touch with the opposite parties through communication itself amounts to deficiency in service.
26. The appellant in the appeal for grounds stated as per Section 56 of Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 54-55 of the terms and conditions of Supply,non payment of charges empowers the licensee to disconnect supply.
13
27. Per contra, the respondent also quotes Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 and clause 9.1 of Chapter 9 of JERC Electricity Supply Code Regulations,2010.The relevant provisions are extracted below :
The Electricity Act, 2003 Section 56. (Disconnection of supply in default of payment): --
(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer...(emphasis supplied) Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2010 "CHAPTER - 9: Disconnection Due To Non Payment Of Bill And Restoration Of Service -Clause 9.1 Disconnection due to non-payment of bill amount Where a person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any other sum due 14 from him to a Licensee, by the due date mentioned in the bill, in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than fifteen (15) clear days notice in writing to such person, without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum due by suit, cut off supply of electricity, until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid". (emphasis supplied).
28. Thus it is clear that 15 days notice is mandatory before disconnection of electricity. The Appellant has not shown any evidence to prove that such notice was given before disconnecting electricity three times. Disconnection of electricity for alleged non-payment of charges would have caused intense mental agony and loss of reputation to the respondent/ complainant constituting deficiency of service. The department is expected to follow the principles of natural justice and give due notice before resorting to disconnections
29. The Department in its defense has mainly emphasised that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has installed rotary switch, has become unauthorised user of electricity and liable for prosecution as per the Electricity Act and JERC code and hence the finding of the District Commission is wrong. It is true that the CGRF has found the installation of rotary switch to be unauthorised and directed its removal. The department has also brought to attention some other violations. However the department has not established any nexus of the violations and the malfunctioning of 15 the meters or excess billing which is the core issue. In the absence of the establishment of any such nexus, the defence of the Department that the respondent/complainant cannot pursue a cause of action which arises out of his own illegal act for claiming deficiency cannot be accepted.'
30. In view of the above findings and discussions,the Commission comes to the conclusion that the order of the District Commission does not need any interference and in the result the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs, Dated this the 1st day of April 2026.
Sd/-
(S. SUNDARAVADIVELU) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(S. OUMASANGUERY) MEMBER