Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant has obtained a electricity connection through K No.43200321385N for AP purpose installed at Kh. No.30/31, Village & P.O Singhu, Delhi-110040 having sanctioned load of 5.60 KW. The connection is for agriculture purpose. It is stated that the election connection never misused by complainant and monthly bill received as per reading up to march 2006 and same were paid.
2. It is stated that complainant has received a bill of Rs.5130.60 p issued for the month of February 2006 in which current demand was Rs.102.24p but under the head “adjustment” an amount of Rs.5044.59p was reflected without giving any details. It is further stated that in the month of July 2006 complainant received a bill of Rs.7800/- in which the current demand of Rs.1112.22p and under the head “arrears” an amount of Rs.6870/- was shown which includes the amount of Rs.5044.59p. The complainant paid the bill under protest but not liable to pay.
3. It is stated that the complainant has received bill for month of September and November which were raised @ 1.50p per unit being agriculture connection and same were paid. It is further stated that complainant received a bill of Rs.16,766.09p in which the billed units have been shown as 1572 but this bill was billed @7.31p per unit illegally. Although, the tariff applicable to complainant is 1.50p per unit. The complainant is not liable to pay such bill which liable to be quashed.
4. It is stated that as per tariff provision the penalty of misuse can only by charged in case the connection is being used for other category such as domestic, non domestic and industrial. It is further stated that in case connection is found misused for any other purpose then a bill can be raised for six months prior to the date of inspection @ 1 and ½ time of the category for which the same has been used as per tariff provision but in the present case no inspection was carried out and it was never reported that the connection has been used for any other purpose. It is stated that before raising the bill neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of personal hearing given to complainant which is against principle of natural justice.
5. The complainant is seeking direction that bill @ 7.31p be declared as null and void and respondent be directed to revise the bill for the month of December 2006 @1.50p per unit, direction to respondent to refund Rs.504.59p deposited by complainant alongwith interest @ 16%, restrain the respondent and its officials from disconnection the electricity supply of the complainant on the basis of non payment of Rs.16,766.09p, direction respondent to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, pain and cost of litigation and other relief which deem fit and proper.
6. OP filed detailed WS and denied all the allegations made against OP in the complaint. It is stated that the meter of the complainant was changed on 24.05.2005 due to stopped and in the said period bills were raised on average basis and not as per actual consumption. It is further stated that meter was stopped therefore the said period from 03.12.2004 to 26.05.2005 as such the said period was assessed on the based period from 05.04.2004 to 03.12.2004 (old) and from 26.05.2005 to 03.01.2006 (new) as per DERC guidelines.
7. It is stated that after replacement of the meter on 26.05.2005 the bill up to  12.07.2005 was also revised on actual consumption by which net demand (assessment as well as actual consumption from 26.05.2005 to 12.07.2005) comes to Rs.5027.55 which was debited in the bill for the month of February 2006 which is correct and legal as raised as per DERC guidelines. It is further stated that OP has referred to the case of Bombay Electricity and Transport Vs Laffans India Pvt. Ltd and stated that the assessment demand raised by OP is legal and payable by the complainant. It is stated that the bill for month of July 2006 was issued for Rs.7800/- in which the assessment demand of Rs.5027 and regular bills were not paid by complainant was shown as arrear.
8. It is stated that on 19.12.2006 the MDI of the meter shown the load as 16KW against the sanctioned load of 5.60KW and on 13.04.2007 again the MDI shown the load as 13KW i.e the complainant used the excess load and the agriculture connection on subsidized rates @ 1.50 per unit is applicably only up to use of 10KW agriculture purpose and in case the consumer used more than 10KW load the rates applicable to misuse of supply are chargeable and payable as per tariff and in the present case as the complainant found used more than 10KW load as recorded shown by MDI of electronic meter therefore the bills in December 2006 was raised as per misuse tariff  and also the bill for April 2007 was raised as per misuse tariff which is correct and payable by the complainant.
9. It is stated that as per approved tariff duly notified by DERC the bills have been raised therefore there is no violation of regulation and principal of natural justice and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Rejoinder filed by complainant wherein all the allegations made by OP in WS denied. The complainant reiterated the contents of complaint. It is stated that respondent is wrongly and illegally made assessment for the alleged period from 03.12.2004 to 26.05.2005 on the base period from 05.04.2004 to 03.12.2004 (old) and from26.05.2005 to 03.01.2006 (new) which is against the tariff provision and DERC regulation. It is further stated that complainant has never misused the connection as alleged by the respondent. The respondent cannot charge misuse charges as agriculture connection has been raised only for agriculture purposes.
11. It is stated that the bill raised for the month of December 2006 and April 2007 with the penalty of misuse tariff and wrong, illegal and arbitrary, therefore, liable to be declared void and illegal. It is stated that complaint may be allowed.
12. Evidence filed by way of affidavit by complainant in which contents of complaint reiterated.
13. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. S.S Antil Commercial Manger. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
14. Complainant as well as OP filed written arguments.
15. We have heard Sh. B.P Aggarwal counsel for complainant and Sh. Harish Purohit AR for OP and perused the record. We have also gone through the tariff and other documents filed on record.
16. The complainant challenged the raising of electricity bill @7.31p for the month of December 2006 as the agriculture connection is granted @1.50 per unit. The OP states that as per bill of December 2006, the recorded MDI shown the load as 16KW against sanctioned load of 5.60KW and thereafter on 13.04.2007 again 13KW load was recorded. The copy of tariff  applicable filed on record according to which the agriculture electricity connection having load of less than 10KW can be charged @ 1.50 and in case load exceeds 10KW then it would be charged @7.31 per KW and also termed as misuse as non domestic. As per bills filed on record the load recorded in the bills was more than 10KW. Therefore, as per tariff the bill for the December 2006 raised @7.31 per unit. We do not find any illegality or unfair action on the part of OP to raise a bill as per tariff. The commission has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of tariff applicable for the year 2005-2006. Therefore, the bill raised by the OP is legal, justified and as per tariff applicable.
17. Now coming to the relief of refund of Rs.5044.59p. The complainant has not stated a single word with regard to the fact that electric meter was changed on 24.05.2005 as it was stopped. The OP has filed on record stating that the meter was stopped for the period 03.12.2004 to 26.05.2005 and it was changed on 24.05.2005, therefore, after installation of new meter as per DERC guidelines an assessment was carried out for actual consumption from 26.05.2005 to 12.07.2005 which comes out to be Rs.5027.55. Therefore, the demand of Rs.5027.55 is legal, fair and according to DERC guidelines.
18. The OP has raised the impugned bills as per the consumption, tariff and assessment for the period when the meter was stopped and a new meter was installed. We do not find any deficiency on the part of OP.
19. On the basis of above observation and discussion, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
20. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  19.12.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                  NIPUR CHANDNA                     RAJESH            

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER                        MEMBER