CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.422/2006
SHRI PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA
S/O LATE SHRI PIARE LAL CHOPRA
R/O 52, UDAY PARK,
NEW DELHI - 110049 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110019 .…..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-06.06.2006
Date of Order-02.02.2024
O R D E R
DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP who is providing electricity to the complainant.
The complainant has stated in his complaint that his wife i.e. Smt. Satish Chopra was a registered consumer of electric connection KNO. 2551L5190459 installed on ground floor and another electricity connection KNO. 2550L5190458 installed at first floor. Both connections were sanctioned in domestic category.
Complainant has further stated that after the demise of his wife, he became the owner of the property and applied for change of the name in both electricity connections and the same was accordingly effected by OP. However, bills are still being raised in the name of deceased Smt. Satish Chopra in instead of complainant.
Complainant has stated that OP was earlier known by the name of DESU and then Delhi Vidyut Board (D.V.B.) and thereafter, BSES has taken over from Delhi Vidyut Board (D.V.B.).
It has been stated by the complainant that he has been making regular payment of all the bills. Complainant has further stated that OP had arbitrarily installed the new electronic meters on 18.01.2003, without any reason when the previous meters were running/functioning properly. It is stated that in the new electronic meters the bills spurred up alarmingly and when the complainant pointed out the same to the OP, the OP agreed and assured to take necessary steps and directed the complainant to deposit the bills of the first floor connection till meter is sorted out. Complainant has been regularly depositing bills of the first floor connection up to date.
Complainant further states that he received the bills with due dates as 16.02.2004, 19.04.2004, 08.06.2004 in respect of meter bearing no.2551L3100562 installed on the ground floor, but the said bills do not show any consumption/ recorded consumption of the units except the amount of Rs. Nil, Rs.1761/- and Rs.4651/- respectively. It is further alleged that OP raised a bill for Rs.14738/- for the month of August, 2004 for 6464 units. This was brought to the notice of the OP who has assured that the same will be rectified and proper bill on actual recorded consumption basis shall be raised, but OP failed to do so.
Complainant stated that he approached the OP officials with bill no.29558 for the month of October, 2004 dated 07.11.2004 for Rs. 20,960/- and the officer-in charge was pleased to order and recorded on the bill stating “Supply not to be disconnected till further orders” and the officer in charge also gave direction to the Asst. Engineer to ensure replacement of the defective meter. He was further directed by OP to pay for the electricity consumption at first floor also till both the meters are replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Complainant further states that he deposited a fee of Rs.50/- for inspection against receipt no.6447 dated 17.11.2004 and the complainant gave a written representation for change of meters vide complaint receipt no.C-600597 dated 17.11.2004.
Complainant further states that the OP’s officials inspected the meter no.27042497 of the ground floor and found the meter as defective one showing wrong and excessive reading and therefore vide Proforma No.6584 it was directed to change the meter. But unfortunately, the same has not been done by OP.
It is alleged that the meter readers of the OP who visited the premises of the complainant for recording the meter reading have also, on request given written observations on 09.06.2004, 11.06.2004, 20.12.2005, 21.12.2005, 28.12.2005, 18.01.2006., 10.02.2006 and 10.04.2006 that the meter was running and jumping fast and the complainant made written representations by visiting on 27.12.2005 to Mr. A.K. Tyagi and Mr. Kashmir Singh and got assurance for immediate action but to no avail.
Complainant further states that he received a notice for disconnection of supply of electricity U/s 56 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, vide Ref. NO.BM/798/06-07 dated 18.05.2006, Ground Floor, Uday Park, New Delhi-49 against bearing No.2551L3100562 in which OP raised a demand for Rs.72189/- against bearing No.2551L3100562 within 15 days. The said notice dated 18.05.2003 was still issued in the name of Smt. Satish Chopra.
It is further stated that bearing number as referred in the notice of disconnection i.e. bearing no.2551L3100562 is not installed and working in the said premises. Rather, the electricity connection vide bearing no.2551L5190459 is installed on the ground floor. It appeared that OP is trying to recover the demand of some other electricity connection bearing no. 2551L3100562.
Complainant replied to the illegal notice of disconnection vide reply dated 01.06.2006 but the OP did not consider the same and disconnected the supply on 05.06.2006 when there was no person present in the said house. He has stated that he has been deprived of the essential amenity of electricity since 05.06.2006.
Complainant further approached the officials of the OP to know the reasons of disconnection and requested for the restoration of the supply, but without any fruitful result.
The complainant prays for restoring the supply of electricity as against KNO.2551L5190459 at ground floor, OP to supply the correct and actual bill on the basis of actual recorded consumption as per the provisions of law in respect of KNO.2551L5190549 installed at GF, OP to replace the defective meters, restraining the OP from disconnecting the supply vide bearing no.2551L5190458 and to refund the excess amount already recovered against this connection, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
Complainant had also filed application dated 06.06.2006 seeking interim relief and has prayed for restoration of electricity supply against KNO. 2551L5190459 installed at 52, Ground Floor, Uday Park, New Delhi.
OP in its reply has raised preliminary objection stating that the complaint is false, baseless and misconceived and is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself as there Is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and have also denied each and every allegations/ averments made by the complainant.
On merit OP has again reiterated that there is no deficiency of service on their part and they have not adopted any unfair trade practice. OP has also stated that change in the name cannot be considered at this time since the supply has already been disconnected it can be considered only when supply is restored. Complainant has been regular in making the payment in respect of KNO. 2551L3100562 and last payment was received in the month of August, 2004. Complainant has also made payment in respect of KNO. 2551L3100561 and the last payment was received on 08.03.2006 for Rs.9620/-. OP has further stated that electro mechanic meters(old meters) were replaced with new electronic meters under meters change drive scheme launched by OP.
OP has reiterated that there was a sudden increase in consumption after August, 2004. However, the meter has been showing constant reading of 672 units only. The other meter turned defective in the month of April, 2005 and had been reflecting constant reading of 1219 since, 2005.
OP has further stated that bills were raised from October 2003 to June 2004 but these were without reading as the same could not be recorded for unknown reasons.
OP has further stated that the new meters installed and these were functioning accurately of electronics units, however, there was a sudden increase of consumption on 10.12.2004 and thereafter, the meter was defective and no consumption has been recorded ever since.
OP has further stated that disconnection notice was issued to complainant for non-payment of current dues, had he visited the office of OP and the OP about defective meters and part payment could have been deposited by him in that event no disconnection would have happened and OP would have initiated the installment of new meters. OP has further contended that old KNO numbers have been replaced with new KNO. 2551L3100561 (first floor) and KNO. 2551L3100562 (ground floor). It is also stated by OP that in their reply in para 17, as per the directions of Hon’ble Forum- OP shall restore the supply of the electricity to the complainant and bill of the complainant shall be duly revised on the basis of the consumption recorded by the old meter before it became defective (average basis). Supply of electricity shall be restored only after an application along with requisite fees for it is deposited by the complainant.
In the end OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint since, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.
Complainant has filed rejoinder and has taken various preliminary objections denying the contentions of OP filed by them. Complainant has stated that OP has abused and misused the process of law which has caused undue harassment to the complainant by way of resorting to illegal action of disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant. This was done with sole motive and intention to extort money and blackmail the complainant. Complainant was left in lurch during scorching summer season without electricity. No show cause/ disconnection notice or opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant.
Complainant is a senior citizen and a noted lawyer. OP had made deliberate attempt to disrespect him apart from causing mental and physical harassment, pain and agony.
The conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice. On merit, complainant has vehemently denied the contents of reply of OP as far as KNO.2551L310056 is concerned. Bills dated 16.02.2004, 19.04.2004 and 08.06.2004 have been received. But these bills did not show the consumption/ recorded consumption but only an amount of Rs.NIL, Rs.1761/- and Rs.4651/- was received respectively. Complainant received a bill of Rs.14,738/- for the month of August, 2004 for 6464 units but OP failed to correct the said bill in the month of October, 2004 dated 07.11.2004 for Rs.20,960/- and visited office of OP to seek clarification, office in charge recorded as an order on the bill itself “supply not to be disconnected till further orders.” Complainant was asked to pay the bill for the other meter installed at ground floor. Till both the meters were replaced. Complainant deposited Rs.50/- for inspection and inspection was in respect of meter installed at ground floor which was carried out and was found defective showing wrong and excessive reading vide performa No.6584 but despite that OP did not change the meter nor rectified the bill. Complainant has made numerous representations on 09.06.2004, 11.06.2004, 20.12.2005, 01.12.2005,28.12.2005, 18.01.2006, 10.02.2006 and 14.04.2006 but to no avail. Complainant has also contended that under the garb of replacing the properly working meter. The OP is installing fast meters in order to make money. The complainant has also denied that there was a sudden increase in consumption as made out by OP. The fact is that newly installed meters are showing excessive and exhorbitant readings over and above actual consumption. Complainant has also denied that he was served notice for disconnection. The complainant has further stated that OP is taking advantage of its own wrongs and misleads firstly by installing highly defective meters, raising wrong and inflated bills and then issuing illegal notice of disconnection. The said conduct on the part of OP is against the interest of consumer against the principles of natural justice and is an act of harassment to the consumer, however, complainant has deposited Rs.25,000/- on 06.06.2006 without prejudice and under protest for the purpose of restoration of supply with the OP but OP has not taken any corrective action. However, in para 20 of rejoinder complainant has stated that officials of OP misbehaved with him and refused to restore the supply unless and until whole amount is deposited. Complainant has reiterated that order may be passed in his favour. Complainant had also filed an application by way of affidavit dated 05.03.2007 seeking interim relief before this Commission that respondents/OPs may be restrained from disconnection of the electricity supply as per notice of disconnection dated 22.01.2007 and 01.03.2007.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the documents.
- Affidavit in evidence is exhibited as CW1/1.
- Copy of bill No.29558 is exhibited as CW1/2.
- Copies of receipts are exhibited as CW1/3 and CW1/4.
- CW1/5 an CW1/6 are not filed by the complainant.
- Copy of performa and reply is exhibited as CW1/7.
- Copy of notice is exhibited as CW1/8.
- Copy of bill is exhibited as CW1/9.
OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit but no documents have been enclosed and exhibited.
Both the parties have filed their written arguments and also citations.
The Commission has considered all the documents and submissions filed by both the parties. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant had made efforts to get the meter transferred in his name after the demise of his wife Smt. Satish Chopra. Complainant had also visited the office of the OP and brought the same fact to the knowledge of the concerned officers of OP but despite that the OP continued to send electricity bills in the name of his deceased wife. The OP has also admitted that the KNO numbers installed on ground floor and 1st floor were not working correctly and for some time they showed a constant reading 672 and 1219 units. This clearly shows negligent act on the part of OP despite admitting that metres were faulty they failed to install new metres on one hand and on the other hand continued to bill the complainant. These two things also establish that OP indulged not only in unfair trade practice but also victimised the complainant with heavy bills.
In addition to it OP also sent notices for disconnection without giving opportunity to being heard to the complainant disconnected the supply of electricity which was unwarranted and against the principles of equity. The officials of OP did not stop even when one of the senior officers of OP recorded “not to disconnect the metres.” It is also pertinent to mention that the electricity supply was disconnected on 05.06.2006 and the test report of metres dated 24.06.2006, 15.01.2007, 08.02.2007 shows defective metres. Under section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act 1910 the OP failed to maintain a register to record the tests conducted, errors recorded on the date of test, limit of accuracy after adjustment, final test date of installation, withdrawal, reinstallation Etc. This also is a clear violation on the part of OP. Under section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the OP can change the meters in maximum period of six months from the date of installation. But all these have not been complied by the OP under the provisions of the Electricity Act 1910 and hence violation of these is also observed. Complainant also deposited the requisite fee for carrying out inspection of metres instead of that no new metres were installed. It is also observed that the test reports show ‘running and jumping metres.’
It is also observed that a stay order for not disconnecting the metre was issued in the year 2009, senior officer of OP had issued written directions not to disconnect the metre, defective metre was changed by the OP, despite that the electricity was disconnected. Complainant paid Rs.25,000/- for restoring the electricity connection but despite payment it was not restored, OP stating that until and unless full payment of the bill pending dues of Rs.12,70,500/- is deposited connection will be restores
The contention of OP in their written submissions has been that the grievance of complainant has been resolved but despite that he is not withdrawing the complaint from this Commission. It has been submitted by OP that the complainant has been irregular in making the payment of his dues.
The OP has not given any clarification/justification with regard to inflated bills sent to the complainant, no clarification and justification has been furnished by OP regarding malfunctioning of electricity metres. No comments have been furnished and substantiated by OP regarding the metre testing reports which read as “running and jumping metres.” It appears that OP has been saddling the complainant only with inflated bills rather than resolving his grievances.
OP could have billed the complainant on the basis of average charges which has not been done but OP continued to send inflated electricity bills to complainant.
Hon’ble NCDRC in FA Nos.30 and 45 of 1992 decided on 16.11.1992 has held that the appellant Sh. Y.N. Gupta was heavily billed by respondent DESU even the billing cycle was not maintained which caused harassment to the consumer/ appellant. It was also held in this Judgment that since the bills were raised without any actual meter reading this was held as deficiency in service. It was also held that change of defective meters is the duty of the DESU and not that of the Consumer. It is also been held in judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in AIR 1987 Delhi 2219 H.D. Shourie Vs. MCD and others has pointed out that the maximum period for a bill which can be used in respect of a defective meters under Section 26(6) is 6 months and not more, which means even if the meter is defective the revised charges can be for a period not extending six months.
After considering the contentions and material on record filed by both the parties, evidences and written submissions, this Commission is of considered view that the services provided by the OP were deficient in service and by disconnecting the electricity metres without giving any hearing to the complainant due to which the complainant suffered mental agony, pain in scorching heat and physical inconveniences etc. The conduct of OP is clear that they have been issuing inflated and wrong bills to the complainant, have failed in replacing the defective meters despite receiving an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant and electricity has also been disconnected. This all amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Therefore the following directions are issued to OP:
- OP is directed to waive off the extra charges in respect of both the metres which were installed at ground floor and 1st floor respectively and the complainant may be billed/ charged on the basis of an average consumption/average charges from the month of June 2005.
- OP is directed to install calibrated new electricity metres at ground floor and first floor of the complainant within 45 days of the issue of this order.
- OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and physical inconveniences in scorching heat in summer season.
- OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
File be consigned to record room.
