SANDHYA BHASIN vs Delhi Vidyut Board

-COMPLAINANT who is a consumer of opposite party-DVB has sought refund of Rs. 9,67,349 with interest @ 3% per month paid in excess towards the electricity bills raised wrongly in respect of the defective meter.

BRIEF facts are that the electricity meter became defective since January 1993 but the O. P. did not replace the same till it was ordered by the Civil Court of Ms. Neena Krishna Bansal, C. J. , Delhi. The O. P. went on charging the complainant on provisional basis in excessive manner without actual readings as the meter was shown to be defective all the time and some times MGC were charged and some times provisional bills were charged. The complainant was forced to make payment of Rs. 9,67,349 under the threat of disconnection. As per the statement of account the O. P. has charged more than Rs. 8 lakh in excess which is liable to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 3% per month. Besides raising preliminary objection that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation the O. P. took the plea that the complainant has also got relief from the Civil Court and moreover he was booked for fraudulent abstraction of energy which matter is pending before A. D. J. , Delhi.

The claim of the complainant that the meter became defective since January 1993 and remained defective and was ordered to be replaced by the Court is false from the fact that regular bills were sent by the O. P. to the complainant showing that the bills were raised on the basis of actual consumption since October 1993 and so much so since 1993 misuse charges were sent in respect of which the complainant had made the payment also and his request for paying misuse charges on instalment basis was also considered. While making payment against this bill there was no allegation of burning of the meter. It was for the first time in July 1997 the complainant raised the allegation of defective or burnt meter. That the meter was changed in July 1997 and bills were raised on average basis. Complainant approached permanent Lok Adalat and got the defective meter changed on 18. 12. 1999.

AFORESAID version of the O. P. has no basis as perusal of the bills produced by the O. P. as well as the complainant clearly make out a case of raising of bills on the basis of faulty meter for years together and the bills were being raised without actual consumption. To say that it was for the first time in July 1997 that the meter was found faulty is wholly incorrect as previous bills pertaining to years 1994, 1995 and 1996 show that every bill was raised on provisional basis or on account of faulty meter. There is a long list of bills which were raised on provisional basis. Had the meter not remained defective since 1993 till 1997 the bills would not have been raised on provisional basis in the year 1994-1995. However, there is only stray bill of the year 1994 where some reading has been shown. It is not understandable as to how reading was shown in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto all the bills were being raised either on provisional basis or on faulty meter basis. To say that the complainant did not intimate the O. P. about the meter being faulty is incorrect and cannot come to the rescue of the O. P. Even if we assume that the meter was faulty since 1993 it was the duty of the O. P. and its meter reader who came regularly for meter reading every second month to report that the meter was not properly functioning.

THE obligation is cast upon the licensee to conduct periodical inspection and testing of the meters as per Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules. Similarly Regulation 18 of the DERC, 2002 and erstwhile provisions of Electricity Act cast obligation upon the licensee and its official reading the meter to check the seals and condition of the meter and whenever there is a deficiency in the meter, he shall report the matter to the higher officer immediately. Similarly, the Regulation 21 of the DERC Act, which is reproduction of Section 26 of the Electricity Act of 1910, provides that 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 six months prior to and six 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 is to be adjusted in this bill. Proceeding on the aforesaid legal provisions we allow the complaint with the following directions : (i) O. P. shall refund Rs. 8 lakh received in excess by virtue of provisional bills as well as bills being raised on the basis of misuse charges without having served complainant statutory show cause notice and raising the bills continuously on incorrect basis in spite of the fact that the meter remained defective for years together. Payment shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

COMPLAINT is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Complaint disposed of.