State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Bishan Devi, on 18 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: 18-11-2008 Appeal No. FA-07/904 (Arising out of Order dated 01-11-2007 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 139/2004) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. .. Appellant Versus Bishan Devi, W/o. Late Laxman Dass, Through her Attorney shri Surinder Kumar, R/o. 61/7, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60. . Respondent 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. Admittedly, the last bill received by the appellant, who is a poor lady, in respect of connection No. 4743690 was in April, 1996. Thereafter no bill was raised and the respondent company has been showing the reading in the meter for different period at different rates. A new meter was installed on 23-10-2006 and it showed the consumption of 1063 units from 23-10-2006 to September 2007. On the basis of the record produced by the respondent and the relevant bills For the period the District Forum has given the following directions to the respondent vide impugned Order dated 1-11-2007:-
i) Charge for 17632 units from April, 1996 to September, 2007 reading 1063 in September, 2007 as per tariff.
ii) Due slab benefits will be given to the complainant.
iii) No LPSC shall be chargeable throughout.
iv) All payments made by the complainant either suo moto or as per directions of this Forum would be credited in the revision of bill.
v) No disconnection till the revised bill as per above directions with due date is delivered to the complainant.
vi) O.P. will accept the payment of revised bill in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be due within 15 days of revision of bill.
vii) O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation for inaction on the part of the O.P. in not issuing bills led to this unwarranted litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. The very direction of the District Forum to the respondent to charge for 17632 from April, 1996 to September, 2007, i.e. for 11 years and 1063 in September, 2007 as per tariff suffers from inherent defect as no such Order can be passed allowing the service provider to charge total number of units, whereas it is only on the basis of per month unit of consumption the tariff is applicable. Moreover, all the bills raised after 9 years were illegal and not in consonance with the provisions of law. No party can be allowed to take advantage of their own acts of omission and commission. Law casts certain obligations on the service provider.
3. Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act as well as DERC Regulations with regard to billing specifically provide that notwithstanding anything contained in the law no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after a period of two years of the said sum became due unless such sum has been shown as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity. The provision reads as under:-
56. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, 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.
4. The details given by the District Forum as furnished by the respondent are self evident showing that no bill was ever raised for 10-11 years and suddenly a new meter was installed, the details of which are as under:-
i) Reading was 8950 till April, 1996. Bill up to this period was paid.
ii) Reading was 9260 in May, 1997.
iii) Reading was 9890 in May, 1999.
iv) Reading was 3300 in May, 2002.
Thus the complainant consumed 4350 units from April 1996 to May 2002.
v) Reading was 9750 in December, 2004. Thus the complainant consumed 6450 units between May 2002 to December 2004.
vi) The reading was 5510 on 23-10-2006. Hence the complainant consumed 5769 units from December 2004 to 23-10-2006.
5. Had the bills been raised and no payment was made it was obligatory on the part of the service provider to disconnect the electricity immediately within one month provided by law. By allowing the person to use the electricity for 11 years without payment of bill, it show that no bill was ever raised nor was the electricity being supplied during all these period. To accumulate such heavy amount and expect a consumer to make payment of such hefty bills in one go by summing up all the units consumed is highly unfair trade practice and grossest kind of deficiency in service.
6. In the result, we allow the appeal only by directing the appellant to raise revised bill for the consumption of 1063 units from 23-10-06 to September, 2007 and the subsequent bills on monthly basis, if already not raised, within one month without charging any LPSC or other charges. Payment of the same shall be made within two months from the service of the bills and, till then the appellant shall take no coercive steps for disconnection of the electricity or any other action
7. It is made clear that a very strict view shall be taken if this Order is not complied with in letter and spirit or circumvented by the appellant as in the past we have come across large number of cases where the appellant started harassing the consumer without complying with the directions given by this Commission by raising fresh bills in their own perspective which is breach of law and infraction of the direction of this Commission. Any such action entails action under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides for penalty of sentence to imprisonment or fine or both.
8. Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. The above directions shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. 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.
11. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK