Y.N.GUPTA vs D.E.S.U.

THERE is no appearance for D.E.S.U. 2. These are two cross appeals against the Order of 27th December, 1991 made by the State Commission of Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-48/90. The relevant facts in these appeals briefly are that three bills for three electric connections in the house belonging to the Appellant - Complainant, Y.N. Gupta, were served on him on Sunday, the 25th March, 1990. The last date for payment indicated in the bills was 28th March, 1990. The total amount of bills was Rs. 1,06,566/- (Current demand Rs. 3,010/- + Arrears Rs. 1,03,456-17). The period to which the arrears related was not indicated in the bills. The Complainant, on the next working day, viz. 26th March, 1990 requested the Executive Engineer concerned for the details of the arrears and the period of which they related. Instead of supplying these details, the electricity connection was disconnected on the 26th March, 1990 itself without assigning any reasons or serving any notice on the Complainant. The electricity supply was restored on the 29th March, 1980 after the Complainant brought the matter to the notice of the General Manager, D.E.S.U.

THE Complainant pointed out that he had paid all the dues on account of electricity consumption upto the 6th December, 1988, after which the aforementioned bill of 25th March, 1990 was received by him. During the proceedings before the State Commission on 14th December, 1990, the DESU discovered that the meters installed were defective as they reflected the consumption in 5 digits instead of 4. Consequently the bills were revised and the amount claimed was Rs. 13,649.75 for the period from 21st December, 1988 to 12th December, 1990 as against Rs. 1,06,546/- claimed on 25th March, 1990, and Rs. 50,583/- from December, 1988 to September, 1990 on the basis of actual readings taking in September, 1990. It is also noticed from the Order of the State Commission that the meters were changed earlier on the 21st December, 1988 presumably because they were defective.

AGAIN , during the hearing before the State Commission, charges for 10,000 units of energy were claimed for the period from 1.1.1986 to 6.12.1988 on the ground that these were not billed due to oversight.

THE appellant was also charged late fee on the bills paid by him even though, according to him, these were paid before the due dates. The State Commission came to the finding that Respondent DESU had been negligent in preparing the bills of Complainant on account of which the Complainant had been put to unnecessary botheration. It held that the Respondent DESU had acted irresponsibly and raised the bills of more than Rs. 50,000/- from 21.12.1988 to September, 1990 whereas the amount due from the consumer was only Rs. 13,600/- and odd from 21st December, 1988 to 12th December, 1990, that is, for a much longer period. In spite of the requests of the Complainant the bills were not rectified. It directed that the matter should be enquired into by the Department and action taken against the delinquent officials.

THE State Commission also held that the disconnection of electric supply by the officials of the Department was effected mala fide in order to harass him. It observed : "We do feel that the Complainant must have suffered mental torture as alleged by him."

IT is found that the Respondent DESU was not entitled to charge the late fee from the Complainant and the same was liable to be refunded. The State Commission upheld the claim of the Respondent DESU for 10,000 units of energy for the period from 1.1.1986 to 6.12.1988 on the ground that it was a genuine mistake on the part of the Respondent DESU which was detected when the readings of the meter were examined minutely. On the ground of equity and to avoid litigation between the parties it allowed the claim of the Respondent for 10,000 units against the Complainant. Against the claim for damages for harassment and metal torture amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/- the Commission allowed Rs. 7,000/- only as exemplary damages. It also ordered the refund of late fee charged from him and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

THE Complainant who is Appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 has attacked the Order of the State Commission as regards the claim for 10,000 units of energy said to have been consumed and remaining unbilled from 1.1.1986 to 6.12.1988 and the quantification of damages awarded to him.

HE has submitted firstly that no claim for 10,000 units of energy was raised earlier or in reply of 6th September, 1990 of the Respondent DESU to his complaint petition. This claim was raised only during the course of the hearing before the State Commission. Secondly, the appellant had paid the dues from 1.1.1986 to 6th December, 1988 and no amount was shown as due from the Appellant for the period prior to 6th December, 1988 in the bill ending that date. In fact, the appellant has urged that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim of Respondent, DESU, while dealing with his complaint petition. Thirdly, according to him, the bills for the period from 1.1.1986 to 6.12.1988 were raised on the basis of actual meter readings and that therefore this claim was without any basis. Fourthly, the precise period or month to which the claim of 10,000 units relates has not been specified and the claim is therefore, vague, imaginary and untenable. Fifthly, the claim is barred by principle of estoppel and is also barred by time. The Appellant has also submitted that the compensation amounting to Rs. 7,000/- allowed to him is grossly inadequately keeping in view that the Respondent DESU had raised illegal and exorbitant bills including unspecified arrears and had disconnected the supply of energy illegally and mala fide with a view to harass him and his family. As he is suffering from heart trouble and hypertension his health suffered due to the power disconnection. The State Commission has itself observed that he was subjected to mental torture by the Respondent.

THERE is considerable force in the grounds on which the Appellant has challenged the claim of DESU for 10,000 units of electricity allowed by the State Commission. There is no justification for requiring the appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 and Complainant - Petitioner to pay for 10,000 units of energy said to have remained unbilled due to oversight during the period from 1.1.1986 to 6.12.1988.

FROM the perusal of the facts and after taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 at the hearing, the following deficiencies in service on the part of the Respondent, DESU, have been established. 1. It was a deficiency in service that the bills for electrical consumption were not prepared and served at the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle and thereafter harassing the consumer with heavy arrears bill (the bill for the period from 21st December, 1988 to 25th March, 1990 was raised on 25th March, 1990). 2. It was deficiency in service to have raised bills without actual meter reading. 3. It was deficiency in service to raise the arrears bill without details of the period to which the arrears pertained. 4. It was deficiency in service to serve the bill on the consumer on Sunday, the 25th March, 1990 and expect him to pay a sum over Rs. 1,06,546/- by 28th March, 1990. We cannot imagine as to how the Respondent, DESU, expects consumers to find funds of such magnitude at short notice even if the bill is correct.

The meters belong to DESU, and meter rent has been claimed in the bills. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the DESU to maintain them in good condition. A mere scrutiny of the meter readings would have shown that the bills reflected consumption in five digits instead of four. Evidently the bills were prepared most casually and indifferently and even elementary care was not exercised to see that the meters were malfunctioning. This constitutes deficiency in service as it inevitably leads to wrong billing against the consumers. 6. Charging of late fee wrongfully, however small it might be, also constitutes deficiency in service towards to consumers. 7. Above all, the disconnection of power supply was arbitrary, highhanded and as observed by the State Commission mala fide with a view to harass the consumer.

We are also distressed to observe the manner in which the Respondent, DESU, has sought to contest the complaint petition before the State Commission and raised belated claims for energy units consumed before 6.12.1988 but remaining unbilled; they are evidence of continued harassment of the Complainant.

We have carefully gone through the appeal of DESU in Appeal No. 45 of 1990. We find it devoid of any substance. We therefore order as under :

THERE is no doubt, whatsoever, that not only the Complainant has been harassed by presenting him with inflated bills requiring him to pay the same at extremely short notice but torturing him and his family members by arbitrarily and mala fidely disconnecting his power supply and that too before the date specified for payment of the bills by DESU itself. In that context we have no doubt that the compensation ordered by the State Commission viz. Rs. 7,000/- is grossly inadequate. We allow a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. In addition the appellant is allowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs before this Commission. This will be in addition to the other reliefs and costs allowed by the State Commission.

THE claim of DESU for 10,000 units of electricity for the period from 1986 to 1988 is disallowed. Before parting with this case we also wish to draw the attention of DESU to the Judgments of the High Court of Delhi in AIR 1987 Delhi 218 H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. and 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 312 Major Zorawar Singh v. M.C.D. The High Court has pointed out that "The maximum period for which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter under Section 26(6) (Electricity Act, 1910) is six months and no more. Therefore, even if a meter has been defective for, say, a period of five years, the revised charge can be for a period not exceeding six months. The reason for this is obvious. It is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the matter. If there is a default committed in this behalf by the licensee and the defective meter is not replaced, then it is obvious that the consumer should not be unduly penalised at a later point of time and a large bill raised." No doubt this point has not been taken by the Appellant either at the original stage before the State Commission where Mr. Gupta was the complainant or in his appeal before this Commission. But this has relevance inasmuch as this would limit the period for which Respondent DESU could and should have made a claim when if discovered in December, 1990 that the meters were defective reflecting readings in five digits instead of four. We expected that the Respondent, DESU, would have suo motu billed the appellant in accordance with the law and the judicial pronouncements on this point. We do hope that the DESU would prefer bills in future in accordance with the judicial pronouncements, thus avoid harassment of the consumers and eliminate avoidable litigation.