State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinod Kumar Singhal vs North Delhi Power Limited on 26 November, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section-9 Clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 26-11-2008 Appeal No. FA-1203/06 (Arising out of Order dated 09-11-2006 passed by District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 386/2005) Vinod Kumar Singhal, S/o. Late Shri Jai Bhagwan, 7676/2, 1st Floor, Singh Sabha Road, Delhi. .. Appellant Versus North Delhi Power Limited, Through Its CEO, Grid Sub Station Building, Hudson Lance, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-9. . Respondent Through Ms. Sanjana Bali, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR (ORAL)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 09-11-2006 passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking revision of the bill raised in the year 2003 showing the arrear since 1996, besides compensation and cost of litigation was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was legally liable to pay the bill as per consumption as the respondent had wrongly charged him for less units and therefore the appellant cannot escape the liability of making payment of consumption charges..
2. The broad facts are more or less admitted. The case of the appellant is that he is the consumer of connection No. 355001342101 installed at his premises and initially the meter was installed with a connected load of 1 KW, which was being used for domestic purposes and he had been making payment of bills received from time to time. After some time he stopped receiving bills and approached the respondent with the request to send him a correct up to date bill. Thereafter he received a bill for Rs. 73,383/- with due date of 20-09-2003. Feeling aggrieved he approached the Civil Court for Injunction and the ADJ, Delhi, allowed him to make payment of the said amount in seven monthly instalments alongwith current consumption charges, which he deposited as per directions. However, the respondent instead of adjusting the paid amount had been raising unwarranted and undue demands in the subsequent bills. According to him when he paid the bill dated 04-09-03 in seven instalments by 29-9-2004 as well as current demand towards consumption charges up til 24-1-2005, the question of any arrear to the tune of Rs. 1,43,716/- does not arise, which however, he received from the respondent vide bill dated 7-5-2005 with due date of 22-5-2005, containing current demand of Rs. 2,558.89, arrears of Rs.1,08,593/- plus electricity tax to the tune of Rs. 5,108/- and Rs. 30,013/- towards LPSC. Feeling aggrieved the complainant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for revision of bill besides payment of compensation.
3. As against this the version of the respondent was that the meter of the appellant was replaced on 22-8-1996 with an initial reading of 2 units and on 21-06-2003 the reading was 62540. The first bill in June 2003 was issued by taking into account consumption w.e.f. 30-6-2000 to 21-6-2003 as the meter reading on 21-6-2003 was 62540. However only 22440 units were charged whereas the bill should have been raised for 62540 dated 21-6-2003 starting from 2Units on replacement of meter on 22-8-96 by giving proper slab benefit and charging meter rent also for the period. Accordingly the bill was revised and a net demand of Rs. 1,68,226/- was raised and the same is payable by the appellant. The appellant very cleverly withdrew the suit before the civil Court knowing well that the revised bill was to be produced before the Civil Court and that he knew he had been charged only for 22440 units instead of 62540 units. All the payments made by the appellant are duly reflected in the subsequent bills and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
4. It is settled law that no party can be allowed to take benefit of its own acts of omissions or commissions. Regulation 12 of the Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission (Regulation 2002) provides that the licensee shall notify the billing and payment schedule and shall raise the bill every billing cycle based on actual reading. The bill should reflect details, e.g. current reading, last meter reading, quantity of electricity consumed, total amount to be paid and details of past arrears, last date of payment etc. and the delivery of each bill should be effected at least 15 days before the date. It also provides that provisional billing shall not be for more than one bill. In case the meter is not working the procedure laid down by Regulation 20 of DERC Regulations has to be followed which is as under:-
Regulation-20: Meter Complaints Correctness of meter Should the consumer dispute the accuracy of the meter, he may, upon giving notice/complaint to that effect and paying prescribed testing fee, have the meter tested by the licensee.
The licensee shall, within 15 working days of receiving the complaint, carry out testing of the meter and shall furnish duly authenticated test results to the consumer.
If the meter is found to have error beyond the limits of accuracy as specified in Rule 57 of Electricity Rules, and the meter has not been tested within the meter testing schedule as prescribed in Regulation 19, the amount of past energy bill shall be adjusted in accordance with the result of test with respect to the meter readings of the 3 billing cycles prior to the billing cycle in which dispute has arisen and upto the date of replacement of meter.
The consumer shall not be liable to pay any demand violation charges if the demand computed on the basis of test results of the meter exceeds his contract demand.
Meter not recording If the meter is not recording/stuck as reported by the consumer, the licensee shall check the meter and if found stuck, the meter shall be replaced by the licensee/consumer, as the case may be, within 30 days of receipt of complaint.
If the meter is not recording/stuck as noticed by the licensee, the licensee shall notify the consumer. Thereafter, the licensee shall check the meter and if found stuck, the meter shall be replaced within 30 days.
The consumer shall then be billed on provisional basis on average consumption of last three billing cycles for a period between the date of last reading and the date of replacement/repair of the stuck meter.
Burnt meter In case the meter is found burnt upon inspection by the licensee on consumers complaint or otherwise the licensee shall restore connection immediately upon receiving the complaint by bypassing the burnt meter after ensuring that necessary corrective action at site is taken to avoid future damage. New meter shall be provided by the licensee/consumer, as the case may be, within three days.
The licensee shall get the burnt meter removed from site/consumers premises and test the same. If it is established, based on test results, that meter got burnt due to technical reasons e.g. voltage fluctuation, transients etc. attributable to system constraints, the licensee shall bear the cost of meter.
Regulation 21: Billing during the period defective/burnt meter remained at site.
The consumer shall be billed (for the period meter remained defective) based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of the consumer for the 6 months prior to and 6 months after the period during which the meter remained defective. The amount already paid by the consumer by way of provisional bills for the period meter remained non functional or defective, shall be adjusted in this bill. In cases where the recorded consumption of past six months prior to the date meter became defective, is either not available or partially available, the consumption pattern as obtained from such lesser period along with the above mentioned subsequent six months pattern shall be deemed sufficient for estimation of consumption.
In case, the Maximum Demand Indicator (MDI) of the meter at the consumers installation is found to be faulty or not recording at all (unless tampered), the demand charges shall be calculated based on billing demand during corresponding months/billing cycle of previous year, when the meter was functional and recording correctly. In case, the recorded MDI of corresponding month/billing cycle of past year is also not available, the highest of the billing demand during 6 months succeeding meter replacement shall be considered.
5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that as and when a complaint is made that the meter is not recording or is stuck, the licensee, i.e. the energy supplying agency, shall check the meter immediately and if found stuck, the meter shall be replaced by the licensee or by the consumer himself, as the case may be, within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint and consumer shall then pay the bill on provisional basis on average consumption of last three billing cycles for a period between the last reading and the date of replacement or repair of the stuck meter.
6. Apart from this Sec. 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that, no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
6. As is apparent none of the aforesaid provisions was complied with by the respondent and straightaway a demand of Rs. 1,68,226/- was raised without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the appellant.
7. As regards the withdrawal of civil Suit, it was withdrawn on payment of Rs. 73,000/- as demanded by the appellant which was towards the first bill raised by the respondent.
8. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law as well as there being no Show Cause Notice issued and served upon the appellant as to the recovery of the bill amounting to Rs. 1,68,226/-, the complaint of the appellant should have been allowed by directing the respondent to revise the bill. It is not a case where the appellant did not inform the respondent that he has not been receiving any bill for the last seven years. He had sent large number of letters and reminders to the respondent for serving bills upon the appellant. We have deprecated the practice of service provider of energy slapping huge bills in one go claiming arrears of 5-10 years and thereby finding ground to disconnect the electricity knowing well that such huge bill cannot be paid in one go. As per provisions of law the arrears are also to be taken in the same manner as the bills are recovered. The service provider cannot be allowed to pile up the bills for such a long period and disconnect the electricity.
9. In the instant case, inspite of having paid Rs. 73,000/- another bill for Rs. 1,68,000/- was raised. Merely because there are certain outstanding dues which in terms of Sec. 156 were not recoverable does not mean that the consumer can be asked to shell out the arrears in such a manner which even otherwise is not possible for a consumer to make payment.
10. That is why the licensee has been given the power to disconnect the electricity if payment of the bill is not made within a month or so, so that the bills do not get accumulated.
The service provider thinks that every person is made of robust fibre and will be in a position to make payment in lacs in one go little realizing that an ordinary man would suffer such a shock that would be difficult to endure. Service provider should keep these factors in mind while taking undue advantage of their own acts of omission and commission of non-compliance of statutory provisions of law.
11. Taking over all view of the matter, we allow the appeal with the direction to the respondent to:-
i) Serve a Show Cause Notice on the appellant for recovery of the unpaid outstanding arrears by revising the bill in terms of the relevant provisions of law.
ii) We also award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not complying with the provisions of law while raising the bills.
12. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. The aforesaid order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
14. Copy of Order, as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
15. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK