B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs D.R. Bajaj and Another

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—In spite of service, the respondent No. 1 has not entered appearance and is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

The respondent No. 1 had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum making allegations that the three electronic meters installed in his premises for recording electricity consumption of the ground floor, first floor and second floor were defective and he was wrongly billed and asked to pay excessive amounts. The respondent No. 1 had relied upon the average consumption pattern as recorded in the electro mechanical meters before they were replaced by new electronic meters on 10th May, 2005.

The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum got the meter tested from an independent laboratory, namely, CPRI, Delhi. The meters were tested in the presence of the SDM of the area to ensure that test was properly done and there was no tampering. As per the test report given by the CPRI, the meters were found to be in permissible limits and were not recording excessive consumption. In view of the said test reports, the matter was disposed of vide order dated 2nd January, 2006, holding, inter alia, that the meters were not defective.

The respondent No. 1 thereafter approached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman by the impugned order did not interfere with the billing tariff/meter in respect of the ground floor and the first floor, but came to the conclusion that the meter installed on the second floor was defective and accordingly the petitioner herein was directed to raise fresh bills for the period May, 2005 to September, 2006 after taking the average of six months prior to the defective period and average of six month after the defective period. The reason recorded by the Ombudsman in the impugned order dated 19th October, 2006 is that the consumption pattern for the ground floor and the first floor after replacement of the electro mechanical meters with the electronic meters, had not shown appreciable jump or increase in consumption but in the case of second floor, there was substantial increase in consumption though there was no increase in connected load.

The consumption pattern for the months of October and December 2004-2005 does show some increase but the same cannot be called abnormal. As per the consumption chart placed on record, the respondent had consumed 762 and 505 units in the month of October and December 2004 and 1113 and 765 units in the corresponding month in the year 2005. Similarly, in February 2005, the respondent had consumed 497 units and in the month of February 2006 had consumed 1036 units. It is not possible to decipher any fixed pattern, conclusion or inference from the said figures. It is apparent that the Ombudsman has proceeded and relied upon irrelevant material and facts and did not take into account the relevant document i.e. the CPRI test report. The learned Ombudsman did not even bother to examine the CPRI meter testing report. It is recorded that the said report was not available with the Ombudsman.

The present writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the Ombudsman is set aside and quashed. The petitioners will write a letter to the respondent No. 1 asking him to make payment. In case the respondent No. 1 makes payment within 15 days from the date letter is served, no late payment surcharge will be demanded/charged. Rs. 5,000/- deposited in this Court will be refunded to the petitioner.