The court distinguished between billing disputes and supply of electricity issues, emphasizing the necessity of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms established by statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the Award dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula on an application filed by respondent No.l under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 .

2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the respondent No.l a Print Media Company is a consumer of the petitioner-Distribution Licensee against Account No.8118740000. Due to COVID -19 pandemic in the month of March 2020 and the consequent lockdown imposed in the country, the working of the respondent No.l-consumer was greatly reduced for a couple of months to comply with the guidelines issued by the Government of India as well as the State Government. The restrictions imposed were, however, relaxed in the month of April, 2020. The labour and staff deputed by the respondent No. 1-consumer was reduced by 70% to 80%. The consumption of electricity also went down to about half of the usual consumption on account of restricted and limited functioning. In the month of January, 2020, the representatives of the petitioner-Distribution Licensee visited the premises of the respondent No.l-consumer and had replaced the electricity meter installed in the premises, even though the earlier meter was claimed to be working perfectly and without any defect. The meter was analyzed and checked, as alleged by the petitioner-Distribution Licensee, and that in the month of December 2020, the petitioner-Distribution Licensee raised a bill showing an excessive charge including a sundry charge of Rs.27,12,040/- for consumption of electricity. The respondent No.l-consumer disputed the abovesaid demand and submitted a representation/ letter alleging therein that the sundry charges levied against the new meter were wrong and not justifiable as there was no alleged slow running of new meter by 69.12% and it was requested to withdraw the said sundry charges. The respondent-applicant stated that the difference of slowness from 17.05.2020 to 24.09.2020 for Rs.15,05,612/- had been adjusted against the amount of Rs.27,12,040/- and the same was objected to. The distribution licensee replied justifying the demand and the adjustment and did not accept the claim.

3. The petitioner-Distribution Licensee appeared before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula and filed its response taking various objections including that the abovesaid amount of Rs.27,12,040/- had been demanded on account of slowness of the electricity meter to the extent of 69.12% as declared by the Executive Engineer, M&P. An earlier notice of Rs.15,09,512/- was issued under the impression that it may have been due to cable changes and wrong phase connections, in the month of May 2020, but as per temper data received from the firm, the meter was slow from January 2020 to September 2020 due to wrong phase connection. The demand was thus alleged to be justified.

4. On failure of conciliation and upon consideration of the rival submissions, the application filed by the respondent was allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula and the demand of Rs.27,12,040/- was held to be illegal, arbitrary and was thus set aside.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate enters appearance and files his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.l-consumer/caveator.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Distribution Licensee contends that the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula is ille