1.      Heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Gaurav Bhatiya, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, for Opposite Party-4 and Mr. Pradeep Mishra, Advocate, for Opposite Parties-1,2,3 and 5. Although Supreme Court has directed for disposal of interim application but both the Parties agreed to argue on the merit in the complaint.

2.      This complaint has been filed for setting aside (i) Electricity bills cum notice for the period of 27.03.2009 to 26.04.2009 (Annexure-C-14), dated 21.08.2009, 03.06.2011, 03.09.2011, 16.02.2012 and 05.03.2012 (Annexures-C-23, C-27, C-34, C-46, C-50-A) and letters dated 04.08.2009, 04.08.2011, 17.08.2009, 05.03.2012  (Annexures-C-20, C-31, C-22, C-48), Audit Report (Annexure-C-42) and orders dated 16.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 (Annexures-C-44, C-45) (ii) to direct the opposite parties continue treating the complainant in the category of LMV-1, 2(b)(ii) and sent all future bills accordingly, (iii) to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.20/- lacs, for the inconvenience and litigation expenses, (iv) to pay compensation of Rs.20/- lacs for mental agony and (v) any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the case.

3.      The complainant stated as follows:-

(a) ‘Radha Soami’ sect has been established on the ideals of “Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of Man” by a religious saint. The followers of this sect lead simple and religious life without any feeling of caste and class and believe in selfless service. The propounder saint of the sect had his ‘ashram’ at Dayalbagh. The followers used to visit there for ‘satsang’ i.e. religious congregation. By the passage of time, the followers began to reside there and a bulk of the land, which was full of shrubs and sand dunes, was levelled and developed into residential colony and agricultural farms by them. State of U.P. declared Dayalbagh colony as a ‘Town Area’ under U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, vide notification dated 29.01.1957. “The Radha Soami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra”, (for short, the society) a religious and charitable society, was formed on 26.03.2010 and registered on 17.11.1921, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the society is to propagate the teachings of the Radhasoami faith and initiate the people into the faith, to hold ‘satsang’, to construct and maintain Holy samadhis of the Founder of the Radhasoami faith and other departed saint sadgurus, to maintain and run the colony of Dayalbagh, to maintain and run subsidize educational institutions for advancement of religion, moral, mental, social, cultural, scientific, technical, industrial, commercial, agricultural, medical, legal etc. The society and its associated organisations established charitable hospitals, dispensaries, schools, colleges, higher learning technical college, vocational training centres and deemed university at Dayalbagh. In the hospital, consultation and treatment of any patients are free. The educational institutions are run on ‘no profit-no loss basis’.

(b) The society had two low tension (LT) electricity connections, i.e. (i) Connection No. M254151, sanctioned load-302 KW, category LMV-1, Residential and (ii) Connection No. M254121, sanctioned load-153 KW, category LMV-IV-A, Institutional. There were frequent fluctuation in voltage, power cut and interruption of supply. In the year 2003, the society requested Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. to amalgamate its two connections into one and fix its category of tariff, which was accepted on 20.03.2004, on the condition of deposit of infrastructural costs (i.e. 33/11 KV Sub Station, 33/11 KV transformer with its controlling circuit breaker, 11 KV circuit breaker, 11 KV transmission lines, 11 KV/400 V transformer and associated switch gears etc.), which came to about Rs.40 lacs and advance security. After deposit of infrastructural cost and advance security, the aforesaid two connections were amalgamated in Connection No. M254151-sanctioned load-455 KW. Electricity supply comes from single point up to Sub-Station of society’s premises, from where, it is separated for residential colony and institutions and separate meters were also installed there. An agreement was also executed between Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and the society on 23.08.2005, in this respect. In lieu of infrastructural cost borne by the society,  7.5% rebate in the bills was also provided. The society, vide application dated 17.08.2005, requested Executive Engineer to fix tariff under category LMV-1 Para-b(ii), for total electricity load of 455 KW as notified by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission vide Office Order No.369/HC/UPPCL/5-1974-2004 dated 25.11.2004, which was for “townships/cantonment/ residential colonies (mixed load) above 450 KW”. Executive Engineer (opposite party-5) vide Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2005, accepted the request of the society and fixed tariff category LMV-1 Para-b(ii), mentioning therein, that if any other tariff was received from higher authority; the same would be acceptable to the society. Thereafter, bills were issued under tariff category LMV-1 Para-b(ii) up to March, 2009.

(c) U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission revised the tariff, vide order dated 10.05.2007, w.e.f. 12.08.2007, in which, tariff category LMV-1 (b)- Supply at single point for bulk load was changed as “For Township, Registered Society, Residential Colonies, Multi-storied residential complexes (including lifts, water pumps and common lighting within the premises) with loads above 50 KW with restriction that at least 70% of the total contracted load is meant exclusively for domestic light, fan and power purposes including lifts, water pumps and common lighting.

(d) After revision of the tariff, tariff category of the society was not changed and bills under category LMV-1 (b) were sent up to April, 2009 but 7.5% rebate, as granted earlier, was withdrawn from September, 2007. The society, therefore, moved representations dated 30.10.2007, 05.11.2007, 10.12.2007, 26.02.2008, 26.04.2008 and 04.06.2008 to the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation, for restoring rebate. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, vide letter dated 18/19.06.2008, informed that it was not possible to extend the rebate for any further period.

(e) Executing Engineer, vide letter dated 24.03.2008, required the society to furnish, break-up of the electricity load being supplied to residential colony and institutions. The society, vide letter dated 03.04.2008, informed that 361 KW (i.e. 302 KW of residential colonies and 59 KW of staff residence, common lighting, water pumps in residential premises in the Institution’s campus) was being supplied/used for residential and 94 KW was supplied/ used by the institutions. The society also requested to increase the residential load to the tune of 50 KW. Managing Director of DVVNL, vide order dated 02.04.2009, directed to increase the residential load to the tune of 50 KW and also directed that the same may be billed as per rules without any penal action.

(f) The bill of April 2009 was sent in category HV-1, on 22.05.2009. Then the society made a representation dated 23.05.2009 to the Executive Engineer, for amending the bill in tariff category LMV-1(2)(b)(ii). The society also made a representation dated 28.05.2009 to Managing Director, in this respect. Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 25.05.2009, informed that w..e.f. 12.08.2007, tariff category LMV-4B and w.e.f. 27.04.2008, tariff category HV-1 were applicable. A.G. U.P. in audit report had raised an objection that due to wrong application of the tariff, a loss of Rs.35.10 lacs had occurred. The society paid Rs.599055/- under category LMV-1(2)(b)(ii) on 30.05.2009.

(g)  Managing Director constituted a team of two Executive Engineers and directed to inspect and determine the loads of the residential and institutions. In pursuance thereof, Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Testing, Division II, Agra and Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Distribution, Division VI, Agra, allegedly made joint inspections on 06.07.2009 and 17.07.2009 and submitted their report dated 30.07.2009 mentioning therein that maximum incoming of Meter No. UPU 09826 was 562 KVA, load of the Colony Feeder i.e. Meter No. UPU 09834 was 403 KVA and the load of the University Feeder i.e. Meter No. UPU 09827 was 227 KVA. However, they stated that at the time of amalgamation, total load was 455 KW, i.e. on Residential Connection No. M254151, load was-302 KW, i.e. 66.4% and on Institution’s Connection No. M254121, load was-153 KW i.e. 33.6%, therefore, tariff category LMV-1, as amended vide Notification No.418/HC/UPPCL dated 11.08.2007 was not applicable as residential load was below 70%. Copy of this report was supplied to the society by Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 30.07.2009.

(h) Opposite Party-2, then sent a letter dated 04.08.2009, demanding Rs.8098291/-, calculating the arrears of the bill under tariff category LMV-4B from 12.08.2007 to 26.04.2008, and w.e.f.  27.04.2008, under tariff category HV-1. The society filed its objections dated 13.08.2009 and 17.08.2009, to the Managing Director, against demand letter. In the month of August, 2009, a bill of Rs.9964538/- was issued (adding arrears of Rs.8098291/-). The society tendered a cheque of Rs.684775/- and requested to accept the bill under earlier tariff category. Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 26.08.2009, returned the cheque and directed to deposit entire amount of the bill otherwise disconnection would be done.

(i)  The society filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45792 of 2009, challenging the aforesaid bills and letters. Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 01.09.2009, restrained the opposite parties, from disconnecting the power supply, on payment of the bill as per rate of earlier tariff category. Thereafter, the bills were paid as per rate of earlier tariff category. Later on, the writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 24.05.2011, on the ground of alternative remedy under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Educational Institution of the society applied for a separate connection on 24.10.2009 and thereafter again on 17.12.2011. Opposite party-4 rejected the application, vide letter dated 16.01.2012, on the ground that so long as pending arrears were not paid, new connection would not be given. Educational Institution then installed a solar panel system of 515 KW capacity.

(j) In the meantime, M/s. Torrent Power Ltd. (opposite party-4) was given franchisee of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., who issued a demand letter dated 03.06.2011, for Rs.3,71,20,449.67. The society moved representations dated 14.06.2011 and 14.07.2011, for accepting the current bills as per earlier tariff as they were taking advice for legal remedy and another representation dated 21.06.2011, for informing as to how the arrears was worked out. Opposite party-4 accepted current bills under protest, as per earlier tariff and vide letter dated 04.08.2011, supplied statement of account showing arrears of Rs.23457031/- till July, 2011. The society submitted its representation dated 23.08.2011, stating therein that under the agreement dated 23.08.2005, their tariff category cannot be changed.

(k)  The society challenged the order of High Court Allahabad in S.L.P. (Civil) No.18388 of 2011, which was dismissed, vide order dated 23.08.2011, giving liberty to raise the ground that tariff category could not be changed from retrospective date. Supreme Court rejected clarification application of the society on 30.11.2011. Opposite party-4 issued a demand letter dated 03.09.2011, demanding Rs.24148707/-. The society filed Consumer Complaint No.214 of 2011, before this Commission, which got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint, vide order dated 30.11.2011. The society, thereafter, filed its representation before the Competent Authority under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 on 19.11.2011. The matter was heard by on 19.12.2011. The Competent Authority rejected the representation, by order dated 31.01.2012. Opposite party-4 also issued a demand letter dated 31.01.2012, demanding Rs.26017615/-. The society, vide letter dated 15.02.2012, sought permission to deposit Rs.446524/- towards bill of January, 2012 but opposite party-4 did not accept the request and issued another demand letter dated 05.03.2012, for Rs.26161837/-, with warning to disconnect the supply, in case, the amount is not deposited within 3 days. Then the present complaint was filed on 12.03.2012 on various grounds, which will be referred at suitable places.  

4.      Opposite parties, 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed joint written reply on 22.08.2012 in which, the material facts, as stated in the complaint, have not been denied. It has been stated that the society was running university/college/vocational training centres, hospital/dispensaries and other professional institution on commercial basis, as such, it was not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and  there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complaint is not maintainable. The society has an alternative remedy under Clause-7.10 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, to redress its grievances before “Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman” as constituted under Section 42 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003. Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court have also directed the society to avail alternative remedy. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission determines tariff of different categories, from time to time, in exercise of its powers under Section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003. The consumer and licensee both are bound by it. Prior to amalgamation, both the connections of the society were on the line of 400 volts. On amalgamation, supply is being done from 33000 volts to 11000 volts or 400 volts as per need, for which the society was required to construct a sub-station for stepping down the voltage to its required level.  At the time of amalgamation of both the connections of the society, tariff as notified by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, vide Office Order No.369/HC/UPPCL/5-1974-2004 dated 25.11.2004, for “township/ cantonment/residential colonies (mixed load) above 450 KW”, was applicable.   As such, the Executive Engineer, vide Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2005, fixed the tariff category LMV-1 Para-b (ii), mentioning therein that if any other tariff was received from higher authority the same would be acceptable to the society.  Under Clause-7 (c) of the agreement dated 23.08.2005, also it has been provided that the rate schedule as mentioned above, may, at the discretion of the Commission/Licensee be revised by the Licensee from time to time and in case of revision, the rate schedule so revised would be applicable to the consumer. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission revised the tariff, vide order dated 10.05.2007 w.e.f. 12.08.2007, by which the tariff category LMV-1 (b)- Supply at single point for bulk load, was changed as “For Township, Registered Society, Residential Colonies, Multi-storied residential complexes (including lifts, water pumps and common lighting within the premises) with loads above 50 KW with restriction that at least 70% of the total contracted load is meant exclusively for domestic light, fan and power purposes including lifts, water pumps and common lighting and for Cantonments (Mixed Loads without any load restriction).  The rebate granted to the society was also withdrawn by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, since August, 2007. Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 24.03.2008, sought information from the society, in respect of load used for residential and institution. The society, vide letter dated 03.04.2008, informed the load used for residential and institution, according to which ratio of residential load was below 70% as such w.e.f. 12.08.2007, tariff category LMV-IV-B was applicable to the society. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission again revised the tariff w.e.f. 27.04.2008 and then tariff category HV-1 has become applicable to the society. Inadvertently, the society was billed under tariff category LMV-1 (b), after 12.08.2007. Audit Officer, in his report dated 22.08.2008, raised an objection and pointed out of huge financial loss of Rs.35.10 lacs due to wrong billing of the society. Then the bill of April 2009 was sent in category HV-1, on 22.05.2009. The society made a representation dated 23.05.2009 to Executive Engineer, for amending the bill in tariff category LMV-1(2)(b)(ii). The society also made a representation dated 28.05.2009 to Managing Director, in this respect. Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 25.05.2009, informed that w.e.f. 12.08.2007, tariff category LMV-4B and w.e.f. 27.04.2008, tariff category HV-1 were applicable, due to revision of the tariff from time to time. Managing Director constituted a committee of two Executive Engineers and directed to inspect and determine the load of residential/institution of the society. In pursuance thereof, Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Testing, Division II, Agra and Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Distribution, Division VI, Agra, made joint inspection on 06.07.2009 and 17.07.2009 and submitted their report, mentioning therein, that the ratio of load on Residential Connection No. M254151 was 66.4% and on Institution’s Connection No. M254121, was 33.6%. Tariff category LMV-1, as amended vide Notification No.418/HC/UPPCL dated 11.08.2007 was, therefore, not applicable. Then demand letter dated 04.08.2009, for Rs.8098291/-, calculating the arrears of the bill under tariff category LMV-4B w.e.f. 12.08.2007 and w.e.f. 27.04.2008, under tariff category HV-1 was issued. The society instead of depositing the bill, filed CMWP No.45792 of 2009, in which, initially interim order was granted on 01.09.2009 but ultimately it was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 24.05.2011. Supreme Court also dismissed S.L.P. (Civil) No.18388 of 2011 on 23.08.2011, filed against aforesaid order. Franchisee of Agra City was given to M/s. Torrent Power Ltd., on 01.04.2010. The Competent authority, in its order dated 31.01.2012, did not find any illegality in the bills/demand letters. As huge amount was due against the society as such demand notice dated 07.03.2012 was issued under U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1958. Impugned bills and demand letters were issued as per revised tariff and there is neither any illegality nor any deficiency in service.

The society filed its Rejoinder Reply on 21.09.2012, in which, the facts stated in the complaints were reiterated. 

5.      Opposite party-4 filed his written reply on 30.07.2012, on similar allegations as such it is not repeated here. It has been stated that Electricity Act, 2003 and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 are special legislations, while Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a general legislation, as such, special legislation has to be given preference. Otherwise also, High Court has directed the society to avail remedy under U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The society has filed this complaint, in violation of the direction of High Court, only by way of forum shopping. The society is raising complex question of factual dispute, which cannot be decided by this Commission, in exercise of its summary jurisdiction. In the bill dated 03.06.2011, there was calculation mistake, which was corrected in the bill dated 04.08.2011 and an amount of Rs.23457031/- was demanded instead of Rs.37120449.67.

The society filed its Rejoinder Reply on 21.09.2012, in which, the facts stated in the complaints were reiterated.       

6. The society filed Affidavit of Evidence of G.P. Satsangi and various documents. Opposite party-4 filed Affidavit of Evidence of Montu Patwa. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. filed Affidavit of Narendra Kumar, annexing copy of Audit objection dated 22.09.2008. All the parties have filed their written synopsis. 

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The opposite parties raised an objection that the complainant is neither a ‘consumer’ as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as nor was there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as such the  complaint is not maintainable. Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defined “service” in which ‘supply of electrical and other energy’ is included. The complainant avails electricity for residential colony and institutions. There is no dispute in respect of residential colony. So far as the institutions are concerned, the complainant has stated that in the hospital/dispensary, consultation and treatment of all patients are free and the educational institutions are run on ‘no profit-no loss basis’. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that the institutions were earning any profits. As such, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has made allegations regarding deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, in paragraph-52 of the complaint, as such objection in this respect, raised by the opposite parties has no merit.

8.      The other objection raised relates to availability of alternative remedy under Clause-7.10 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, before “Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman”. It has been argued that Electricity Act, 2003 and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 are special legislations, while Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a general legislation, as such special legislation has to be given preference. Otherwise also, High Court and Supreme Court have directed the society to avail remedy under U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The society has filed this complaint, in violation of the direction of High Court, only by way of forum shopping.

9.      Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is not a rule of law rather a rule of convenience. The Courts exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction can exercise this power. Statutory court/ tribunal cannot invoke this principle. Statutory court/tribunal is required to examine as to whether its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred under any statute. The counsel for the opposite parties did not point out any provision under Electricity Act, 2003 and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which bars the jurisdiction of consumer forum. Consumer forum has concurrent jurisdiction. Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It cannot be treated as a direction to avail a particular remedy alone as mentioned in the order. Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16, has held that the plaintiff is a dominus litis, that is, master of, or having dominion over the case. In case of conflict of jurisdiction, the choice ought to lie with the plaintiff to choose the forum, best suited to him.

10.       The dispute between the parties is in respect of applicability of tariff category w.e.f. 12.08.2007. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission revised the tariff, vide order dated 10.05.2007, w.e.f. 12.08.2007, in which, tariff category LMV-1 (b)- “Supply at single point for bulk load” was changed as “For Township, Registered Society, Residential Colonies, Multi-storied Buildings (including lifts, water pumps and common lighting within the premises) with loads above 50 KW with the condition that 70% of the total contracted load shall be exclusively for the purposes of domestic light, fan and power including the load required for lifts, water pumps and common lighting. In the next revision of tariff, w.e.f. 27.04.2008, this category remained unchanged.

11.    Executing Engineer, vide letter dated 24.03.2008, required the society to furnish the break-up of the electricity load being supplied/used by residential and institutions. The society, vide letter dated 03.04.2008, informed that 361 KW (i.e. 302 KW of residential colonies and 59 KW of staff residence, common lighting, water pumps in residential premises in Institution’s campus) was being supplied/used for residential and 94 KW was supplied/used by the institutions. The society also requested to increase the residential load to the tune of 50 KW. Managing Director of DVVNL, vide order dated 02.04.2009, directed to increase the residential load to the tune of 50 KW and also directed that the same may be billed as per rules without any penal action.

12.    During audit, Audit Officer, A.G., U.P., in his report dated 22.08.2008, raised an objection and pointed out huge financial loss of Rs.35.10 lacs, due to wrong billing. A copy of the report dated 22.08.2008, has been filed on 31.10.2017, along with Affidavit of Narendra Kumar, Executive Engineer. A perusal of the report shows that in this report it has been doubted that Dayalbagh Satsang Sabha was neither a township nor a residential colony. The connection released to it, under the tariff category LMV-1, was against the provisions of tariff. The load should have been released under tariff category LMV-4-B.

This report was factually incorrect and based upon surmises.   There is no dispute that the complainant is a religious and charitable society, registered on 17.11.1921, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Dayalbagh colony has already been notified as “Town Area” by State of U.P. on 29.01.1957. Executive Engineer (opposite party-5) also filed his objection to this report.

13.    Without actual verification of the loads of residential and institutions, the bill of April 2009 was sent in HV-1 category, on 22.05.2009. The society made a representation dated 23.05.2009 to the Executive Engineer, for amending the bill in tariff category LMV-1(2)(b)(ii). The society also made a representation dated 28.05.2009 to Managing Director, in this respect. Managing Director constituted a committee of two Executive Engineers and directed to inspect and determine the residential and institutions load of the society. Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Testing, Division II, Agra and Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Distribution, Division VI, Agra, made joint inspection on 06.07.2009 and 17.07.2009 and submitted their report dated 30.7.2009, mentioning therein that maximum incoming load of Meter No. UPU 09826 was 562 KVA; load of the Colony Feeder i.e. Meter No. UPU 09834 was 403 KVA and the load of the university feeder i.e. Meter No. UPU 09827 was 227 KVA. However, they stated that at the time of amalgamation, total load was 455 KW; on Residential Connection No. M254151 load was-302 KW, i.e. 66.4% and on Institution’s Connection No. M254121 load was-153 KW i.e. 33.6%. Tariff category LMV-1, after revision of tariff, vide Notification No.418/HC/UPPCL dated 11.08.2007, was therefore, not applicable as residential load was below 70%.

14.    Finding in this report that residential load was 66.4% of total supply, was based upon two sanctioned loads, at the time of amalgamation of two connections, on 23.08.2005. While reading of meter shows that out of total incoming load of Meter No. UPU 09826 of 562 KVA, load of the Colony Feeder i.e. Meter No. UPU 09834 was 403 KVA. On these figures, ratio of residential load comes to 71.70% i.e. above 70%. As such the tariff category of the complainant did not change.

 15.   The Competent Authority, in his order dated 31.01.2012 has remarked that while supplying the details of loads of residential/ institutional, BL Form had not been supplied. In case, the society had not supplied BL Form, then, the team of Executive Engineers would have demanded for it, before joint inspection. Joint inspection was done of the meter at the entry points of two connections and the separate meters of two connections at its supply points, i.e. (i) residential colony and (ii) institutions. Form these meters reading, residential load comes to 71.70%. As such, the details of 59 KW load of staff residence, common lighting, water pumps in residential premises in Institution’s campus is not required to be determined as after its inclusion, the residential load would be much more than 70%. 

16.    In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that calculation and realization of the arrears of the bill under tariff category LMV-4B w.e.f. 12.08.2007 and under tariff category HV-1 w.e.f. 27.04.2008, from the complainant is illegal and without any basis. 

O R D E R

In result, the complaint is partly allowed. Electricity bills cum notice for the period of 27.03.2009 to 26.04.2009 (Annexure-C-14), dated 21.08.2009, 03.06.2011, 03.09.2011, 16.02.2012 and 05.03.2012 (Annexures-C-23, C-27, C-34, C-46, C-50-A) and letters dated 04.08.2009, 17.08.2009, 04.08.2011, 05.03.2012 (Annexures-C-20, C-22,  C-31, C-48), and orders dated 16.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 (Annexures-C-44, C-45) are set aside.