CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.571/2007

Shri Krishan Seth,

R/o Khasara No.1487/13671366,

New SQ No. CDRF-205,

Gurgaon Road, Village Chhatterpur,

New Delhi-85.                                                                      ………. Complainant                                                                                        

                        Vs.

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Regd. Office BSES Bhawan,

Nehru Place,New Delhi-110019 

                                                …………..Respondent

Date of Order:  12.08.2016

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia-Member

            The facts of the complaint are that the Complainant was having four electricity meters installed at his premises and in order to distribute the electricity load evenly, the complainant applied for load enhancement of the electricity meter in question.  OP scrunized the application form and personally inspected the premises, assessed the electricity load after checking and counting all electricity points installed in the premises of the complainant.  OP after verifying and checking upto their utmost satisfaction installed a new three phase whole current electronic electricity meter bearing no. 28047688 against K.No. 25200F090005 with sanctioned load of 20.73 KW in the premises of the complainant on 16.04.2005.  It is pertinent to mention here that the electricity load was connected by OP after their due testing, checking and verification.

            It is stated that the load sanctioned was 20.73 KW against that meter but the maximum load connected was never more than 13.73 KW.  These details are provided by the OP itself in electricity bills raised by the OP and sent to the complainant for payment against the meter.  Previous bills showing such details are annexed here to as Annexure A-1 to A-3.

            It is stated that the OP informed the complainant that bill no.937328 dated 14.01.2007 is inclusive of escaped energy charges of the period from 16.04.2005 till 04.09.2006, of previous electricity meter no. 28047688 when the meter was recording less energy by 42.13%.  He was assured that a new meter would be installed.  OPs failed to install a new meter and complainant had to go without electricity for that particular connection.  The complainant thereafter received the bill with due dated 27.09.2007 for Rs.9,280/- and the bill is annexed. 

            As no electricity has been provided during that period, the complainant protested with the OP Company.  He was further assured that non-payment of bill would create a problem in the installation of electricity meter.  The meter was changed on 12.01.07.  Another bill dated 14.10.2006 was received based on provisional consumption.  The complainant received next bill dated 14.01.07 wherein an amount of Rs.90,570/-.

The complainant was once again assured that this bill was inclusive of escaped energy charges and as such the bill was to be paid.  The complainant thereafter applied for enhancement of load and deposited Rs.10,200/- as advanced consumption deposit.  The complainant started receiving bill thereafter under the category of non-domestic bill.  The enhancement was accepted by Tentative Demand Note (load enhancement) on 25.01.2007. It is imputed that the billing was under the category of farmhouse/ agriculture but after load enhancement the billing was to be charged to domestic category.  However, the bills were raised on non-domestic category from the month of February to June.   The complainant time and again requested the OP official to rectify the category of bill.  Thereafter the complainant received a bill with due dated 8.5.2007 for Rs.1,81,065/-.  The complainant was told that the bill is towards escaped energy charges.

The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment towards payment under protest.  The complainant prays for the rectification of electricity bill and refund of Rs.1,00,000/-  which was paid under protest.  Complainant also prays for rectification of category shown and damages.

OP in its reply admits the inspection of premises on 4.9.2006.  An assessment report was prepared and attached with the reply.  The photographs taken by digital camera are also attached.  OP has given details of irregularities in para 6 of reply.

• Meter box seals were open.
• Meter terminal seals found missing.
• Meter Data was down loaded through the CMIRI.
• Meter was found slow by (-) 42.13% with Standard Accuracy Check.
• To ascertain cause of slowness of the meter, inspection team segregated the meter at site in presence of the representative of the complaint and observed that one phase potential resistance was found loose condition due to which meter was not getting potential across one of its phase resulting meter was recording less energy by 42.13%.

OP further states in para 7 that complainant had made a request vide letter dated 04.03.2007. wherein he is ready to make the payment for escaped energy for period 16.04.2005 to 12.01.2007.  Subsequently an assessment bill for the sum of Rs.1,81,062/-was prepared.  OP in para 12 of the reply states that the complainant had never approached OP for rectification of bill and installation of new meter.  OP has annexed the inspection report in detail along with the photographs.

We have given thoughtful consideration by pleadings of both the parties which are supported by sworn affidavit.  Perusal of the bills shows that complainant was regularly paying the electricity bills.  It is admitted by both the parties that premises were inspected on 04.09.2006.  A portion of inspection report dated 04.09.2006 are

• Meter No.28047688 is found installed at the above said premises.
• On physical checking the PN-1= 226.5v, PN-2=238.3v, PN-3=0v and current L1=53.16A, L2=40.30A, L3=60.50A, hen checked with chip on meter ...are found as PN-1=223v, PN-2=235v, PN-3=227v.
• Meter found slow by 42.13% on stand caliberated a CM-check meter.
• Meter half seals and ultra sonic wilding found intact.
• Meter is registered to know the reason of slowness and y phase resister is found loose which is a technical fault and assessment of the case may be done.
• Instead of this meter 3 NOS other meters are also found installed on this premises and joint team taken the lord on the above said meter by disconnecting the other three meters and land report is prepared vide our L.R. No.-1643.
• Meter detail is taken and report is prepared vide our MR No.3141.
• All the relevant photographs are taken with digital camera by joint staff.
• Supply is restored through the same meter by posting IRNO-58498, 74701,74702.
• In the lights of the above facts it is a case of assessment.
• MLCC is required to replace the meter with new electronic meter.

The meter was giving faulty reading by 42.13% due to y phase register found to be loose as per inspection report,  which is a technical fault.  A new meter was installed in the premises on 12.01.2007 and a meter changed report is annexed by OP as annexure E6.  The bill dated 14.01.2007 shows amount payable as Rs.90,570/-.  The details of the bills shows that energy charges was Rs.1,13,820/- and the category was domestic.  Though the energy charged was on a higher side, the complainant paid the bill under the impression that OP was charging for the escaped energy.  A load enhancement demand note dated 25.01.2007 annexed as annexure A8.  It specifies that load has been enhanced by 17.7 kilowatt under domestic category.  Thereafter the bills by OP from February onwards shown the category to the non-domestic and the energy charges approximately between 10-18 thousand per month.  Coming to the disputed bill having due date 8.05.07., it is seen that the bill is a charge for unauthorised use of electricity.  The amount for a sum of Rs.1,81,065/- is demanded without giving any explanation.

OP in its reply has not disputed any of the bills.   Inspection report confirms that meter seals were found intact and due to technical fault meter was found slow by 42.13% and it is a case of assessment.  The inspection report nowhere alleges, states or confirm that there was unauthorised use of electricity.  OP has contradicted its own inspection report in its reply by stating that meter box seals were open and terminal seals were found opened.  OP has nowhere explained the bill dated 14.01.07 wherein the energy was charged as Rs.1,13,820.233/-.  OP has not given any cogent or convincing reason that there was unauthorised use of electricity.  OP has also relied upon para 7 of its reply on a request letter dated 4.03.07 by the complainant.  No such letter has been filed along with any of the pleadings.  OP has further failed to clarify how the category which was allowed as domestic vide demand note dated 25.01.07 was converted to non-domestic category.  The plea set up by OP is vague and evasive and lead the Forum nowhere.  On the face of it, the whole action has been taken by OP in merely mechanical manner without verifying the actual record.  For this internal mismanagement, the consumer cannot be held responsible. OP providing public services have a greater responsibility that innocent consumers are not harassed and all charges are explained.  In fact it is not the case of unauthorised obstruction of electricity on it is evident from the enquiry report that there was no tampering of the meter.

We therefore find OP grossly negligent in the service provided to the complainant and direct it to cancel the supplementary bill for unauthorised use of electricity.  OP will also refund Rs.1,00,000/- which was illegally collected on the bill dated 08.05.2007 along with 9% from the date of filling of the complaint.

We also direct it to rectify the category shown in the bills from non domestic to domestic.  We also award Rs.10,000/- towards harassment caused to hapless consumer as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

Order to be complied within one month.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.  File be consigned to Record Room.

(D.R TAMTA)                                   (RITU GARODIA)                     (A.S YADAV)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT