Discom Can't Issue Exorbitant Bill Based on Unproven Tampering, Must Average Past Consumption for Faulty Meter: Rajasthan State Consumer Commission - 2025-06-20

State Consumer Commission Orders JVVNL to Revise Exorbitant ₹3.2 Lakh Bill, Cites Lack of Evidence for Tampering

Jaipur : The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has provided significant relief to a consumer burdened with an exorbitant electricity bill, ruling that an electricity distribution company (Discom) cannot issue a shockingly high bill based on unsubstantiated allegations of meter tampering. The Commission, modifying a District Commission order, directed Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) to withdraw the disputed bill and issue a fresh one based on the consumer's average consumption over the preceding two years.

The bench, comprising Members Shri Nirmal Singh Medatwal, Shri Surendra Singh, and Shri Ramniwas Saraswat, also upheld compensation for the consumer's mental anguish and litigation costs, while partially allowing JVVNL's appeal.

Case Background: A Bill for ₹3.21 Lakhs

The case originated from a complaint filed by Mohammad Raja Khan, a resident of Jaipur, who was issued a staggering electricity bill of ₹3,21,549 in July 2017 for a purported consumption of 41,260 units in his domestic connection. Khan, who had a consistent payment history with bills typically under 200 units, challenged this demand before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur III.

The District Commission had ruled in his favor, ordering JVVNL to revise the bill and awarding ₹11,000 for mental agony and ₹5,000 for costs. JVVNL challenged this decision in an appeal before the State Commission.

Arguments in Court

JVVNL's Position: The power utility argued that the consumer had colluded with the meter reader to record artificially low readings for over two years. They alleged that the consumer had obscured the meter display with cement paste, and the "correct" high reading was only discovered after it was cleaned. JVVNL also contended that the consumer had not filed a separate evidence affidavit, weakening his case. In the appeal, they introduced a new fact that the meter was subsequently found faulty and replaced in 2017.

Consumer's Defence: Representing the consumer, the counsel argued that such massive consumption for a domestic connection was implausible. It was highlighted that JVVNL failed to provide any evidence, such as photographs of the alleged cement paste or records of action taken against the implicated meter reader. The consumer had filed an affidavit with his initial complaint and pointed out that his bills for the previous two years were consistently low, with the highest being for 500 units.

Commission's Observations and Ruling

The State Commission, after a thorough review of the case file, made several key observations:

• Lack of Evidence for Tampering: The Commission noted that JVVNL's entire case rested on the allegation of meter tampering by the consumer. However, as the judgment states, " ...no such photographs were found to have been submitted. " The utility also failed to show what action, if any, was taken against the meter reader accused of collusion.

• Contradictory Stance of JVVNL: The Commission pointed out JVVNL's conflicting arguments. Before the District Commission, JVVNL claimed the meter was fine and the reading was accurate. In the appeal, they admitted the meter was replaced in 2017, implicitly acknowledging it was faulty. The judgment highlighted this inconsistency: " ...the appellant parties are making both claims; on one hand, they state the meter is correct, and on the other, they talk about changing the meter in 2017 due to a fault. "

• Implausibility of Consumption: The Commission agreed that the billed amount was beyond belief for a domestic connection. It held, " A person of common prudence can also believe that in a domestic electricity connection, an electricity bill cannot increase by such a high unit count as was given in the disputed bill of July 2017. "

• Principle of Averaging for Faulty Meters: Since the meter was evidently faulty (as evidenced by a "zero unit" reading and its subsequent replacement), the Commission ruled that the only fair method for billing was to calculate an average based on past, undisputed consumption.

Final Order

The State Commission partially allowed JVVNL's appeal, setting aside the District Commission's order and issuing a modified directive:

1. Bill Revision: JVVNL must withdraw the disputed July 2017 bill and issue a new one within two months. The new bill is to be calculated based on the average monthly unit consumption from the two-year period immediately preceding July 2017.
2. Compensation: The compensation for mental agony was reduced from ₹11,000 to ₹5,000, which the Commission deemed "appropriate." The litigation cost of ₹5,000 was maintained.
3. Interest Clause: If the total compensation of ₹10,000 is not paid within one month, it will attract an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the original complaint until payment.

This judgment reinforces the principle that utility providers cannot penalize consumers with exorbitant bills based on unproven allegations and must follow a fair and logical process, such as averaging, when meters are proven to be defective.