Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Rajeev Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1640 of 2014 & CM Appl. 3420 of 2014
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Electricity Supply - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42(5), Section 42(6) - Regulation 37(i), Regulation 38, Regulation 43 - The court discussed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the 2007 Regulations in relation to the billing for defective meters and upheld the decisions of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the bills raised by the respondent for supply of electricity due to defective meters. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman upheld the respondent's contention, and the petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the billing for the period of defective meters was in accordance with the 2007 Regulations, and upheld the decisions of the statutory forums. The court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application.
Issues: The main issue was the period for which the impugned levy could be raised in relation to the defective meters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period for which the impugned levy could be raised was not limited to the period after the last reading of the meter, as argued by the petitioner. The court relied on the provisions of the 2007 Regulations and upheld the decisions of the statutory forums.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against bills raised by the respondent for supply of electricity amounting to Rs.14,16,520/-, and orders dated 28.02.2013 and 19.12.2013, passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ["CGRF"] and the Electricity Ombudsman respectively, on his complaints.
2. The petitioner was a tenant in the premises No. A-248, DSIDC Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi-110040. The premises had an electricity connection in the name of his landlord, Mr. Vishal Jain under C.A. No. 60008422549. It appears that the meter was changed several times. A new meter was installed on 15.06.2011, which was also found to be defective on 23.12.2011. The respondent, thereafter, raised the impugned charges upon the petitioner for the period 22.06.2011 to 22.12.2011 for consumption during the period the meter was defective.
3. The only contention raised by Mr. B.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court is that a meter reading had been taken in the interregnum on 04.08.2011, when no allegation of defect in the meter was brought to the notice of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the disputed levy, if at all, can only be made for the period from 04.08.2011 to 22.12.2011.
4. The petitioner approached the CGRF, constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 ["the Act"], which passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2013, upholding the contention of the respondent with regard to defect in the meter, but recomputing the amount payable by the petitioner. Before the CGRF, the petitioner's grievance was with regard to the finding of defect in the meter, and not with regard to the period for which the impugned levy was made.
5. The petitioner carried the matter to the Electricity Ombudsman established under Section 42(6) of the Act, in appeal. At this stage also, the ground now raised was not agitated. The Ombudsman vide the impugned order dated 19.12.2013, upheld the decision taken by CGRF, inter alia, with the following observations:
" **** **** ****
It appears that the First meter (no.02082434) was energized at the premises on 16.02.2004. This was replaced on 27.01.2005 due to DERC's requirement of installing Lag only configuration meters. The Second meter (no.04261480) lasted from 27.01.2005 to 15.06.2011 and was found faulty/burnt due to higher load reaching upto 60 KW as against the 8 KW sanctioned. The Third meter (no.51005473) lasted from 15.06.2011 to 23.12.2011 and was also found faulty this time with one phase current reported missing. The Fourth meter (no.51003657) was also burnt and lasted from 23.12.2011 to 27.03.2012. The Fifth meter (no.52014181) installed on 27.03.2012 was functioning normally. During this period, the consumer requested for load enhancement on 09.04.2012 which was allowed for 61 KW and the meter was replaced on 05.06.2012. Finally, the Sixth meter (no.93403058), which is still functioning as on date, had its load further enhanced upto 83 KW from 06.05.2013. The details of the meters changed and the reasons for replacement with some remarks are available in the attached Annexure 'A'.
At various points in the repeated changed of meters, the consumer was being billed amounts either based on readings or based on the estimated consumption as provided in the DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007. The CGRF has gone into the details of the different billings carried out and has come to the conclusion that the appropriate Regulations were followed at different points in time, for different periods related to each meter as it malfunctioned. They have not found any serious flaw in the action taken and have ordered the payment of the revised bill of Rs.14,07,125/-.
**** **** ****
The above facts show that the functioning of the industrial unit over the years happened in the background of increasing electrical load which was initially at 8 KW. R
The court established that the billing for defective meters must comply with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant regulations, and upheld the decisions of the statutory forums....
Electricity distribution companies must follow the procedures prescribed by the WBERC Regulations and the Electricity Act, 2003, when alleging that a consumer's electricity meter is defective and whe....
The court established that a licensee can raise a supplementary bill based on average consumption despite delays in meter replacement, provided it adheres to the terms of the agreement.
A utility must refund excess charges from faulty meter readings as per relevant regulations limiting billing periods.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in billing disputes, affirming that natural justice principles apply even in electronic billing contexts.
Determining meter correctness is limited to physical defects; wiring errors cannot invoke inspector reviews as per Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
