State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Rajbir Singh on 13 May, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 13.05.2008 Appeal No. 741/2004 (Arising out of Order dated 18-06-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, North East, Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri Delhi in Complaint Case No. 482/2002). BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Appellant Through its Ex.Executive Engineer, Distt. Office Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. Versus Mr. Rajbir Singh Respondent R/o B-1024-A2, Gali No.1, Khajoor Khas, Shahdara, Delhi. 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, President (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 18.06.2004 the appellant has been directed to issue revised bill by raising demand in respect of the connection on average basis for six months only and for the remaining period on minimum guarantee basis for the period during which the meter of the above connection remained faulty, without levy of any LPSC. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The aforesaid order was passed on the allegation of the respondent that though the connection has been sanctioned for domestic purpose and is being used as such, the appellant has been sending bills on higher tariff with misuse charges without issue of required show cause notice which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Further that the supply to the connection was disconnected in December, 99 but still consumption bills were being sent by the appellant. His site was also inspected and no misuse was found but even then the bills have not been received on correct tariff. The respondent accordingly prayed for directions to the appellant to withdraw misuse charges from the date of levy as well as the bills after disconnection of supply and issue revised bill on domestic tariff without late payment surcharge and to restore the supply besides payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for undue harassment and Rs. 6,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. In its reply, the appellant stated that as per reading chart, the meter was not recording any reading since February, 92 and the appellant was using the supply directly from the service mains by way of misuse. According to the appellant, misuse remarks and direct use of supply remarks are being indicated by the meter reader from time to time. Latest site report also showed that the respondent was using the supply for commercial purpose and the report was forwarded to the Ex. Engineer(D) for necessary action as per rules. Further that as per record, show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 6.5.97. The appellant submitted a copy of the statement of A/c for the period from August, 93 to October, 02.
4. We have perused the impugned order closely and found that the appellant was rightly held guilty for deficiency in service in not maintaining the meter and not removing the defects or replacing the meter as per Regulations of DERC and despite that raising the bills.
5. There are certain statutory obligations cast on service providers like the appellant which are to be discharged as and when a complaint against faulty meter is made. The new Electricity Act 2003 also has similar provisions as were contained in the earlier Electricity Act of 1910 and 1947. There are regulations known as Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Performance Standard Metering and Billing Regulations 2002 made under the Electricity Act 2003. Regulation 20 pertains to metering complaint. There are three types of complaints:-
(i) Correctness of meter
(ii) Meter not recording
(iii) Burnt meter
20. Meter Complaints
(i) Correctness of meter
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) The consumer shall not liable to pay any demand violation charges if the demand computed on the basis of test results of the meter exceeds his contract demand.
(ii) Meter not recording
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(iii) Burnt meter
(a) In case the meter is found burnt upon inspection by the licensee on consumers complaint or otherwise
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) In case upon inspection of the consumers installation and subsequent testing of the meter, it is established that meter got burnt due to causes attributable to the consumer e.g. tampering, defect in consumers installation, meter getting wet due to falling of water, connection of unauthorized load by the consumer etc. the consumer shall bear cost of new meter in case the original burnt meter was provided by him. In case the meter was provided by the licensee, the consumer shall pay the cost as under:
If meter was less than 2 years old full cost Between 2 to 5 years old 75% of the cost Between 5 years to 8 year 50% of the cost Between 8 years to 10 years 25% of the cost More than 10 years no cost
(d) In case the meter is found burnt and there is reason to believe that an official of the licensee gave a direct connection, pending replacement of meter, a case of direct theft shall not be booked. Consumers complaint for replacement of burnt meter or the complaint regarding disruption in supply of energy shall be considered sufficient for this purpose.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and finding of fact returned by the District Forum, the impugned order does not call for interference and as such we dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
7. The impugned order shall be complied with, if already not complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
10. Announced on 13th day of May, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc