Electricity companies can revise bills based on bonafide mistakes in calculations, and consumers must provide evidence to challenge meter readings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner Electricity Distribution Company takes exception to the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short “CGRF”) in Case No. 071 of 2022 filed by the respondent, whereby direction was issued to revise recovery bill considering only 7939 units for consumption for the month of November-2020.

2. Parties are referred to as electricity company and consumer for the sake of convenience. There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer has been allotted electricity connection under No. 0030110044757 with connection load of 24.50 KW. On 14.02.2020 consumer applied for Solar Rooftop net metering connection and accordingly it was sanctioned for a load of 18.5 KW on 09.06.2020. Pursuant to the sanction, consumer purchased necessary meters, current transformers (for short “CT”) required for the said connection. The meter and CT were tested at MSEDCL, Vasai, testing laboratory on 17.06.2020 and 03.09.2020 respectively. It was found that the said meter and CT were “OK” i.e. suitable for installation. In November-2020, rooftop solar connection was released by electricity company by installing tested meters and CT in consumer’s premises by replacing the then existing meter. Thereafter, regularly, bills were issued towards payment of electricity charges on the basis of meter reading recorded therein. Electricity company initiated scrutiny of consumers whose sale is found dropped more than 30% as compared to the sale in F.Y. 2018-2019. A check was done in the premises of consumer and it was noticed that the meter installed at the consumer’s site is of 5/5/A which is connected to 100/5/A/CTs and multiplying factor which was supposed to be 20 was wrongly punched as one. On the basis of spot inspection report and after making the due calculations, bill was issued for Rs.7,35,010/- on 26.06.2022.

3. Consumer being aggrieved by the issuance of the said recovery bill approached CGRF by filing Case No. 071 of 2022. The electricity company filed reply in the said proceeding. On 15.11.2022 impugned order came to be passed by CGRF wherein it was directed to issue revised bill considering 793 units for the months of November-2020 after adjusting payments made by the consumer.

4. Learned counsel for the electricity company submits that the issue involved before the CGRF was as to whether it was open for the electricity company to issue bill for the differential amount on the basis of incorrect application of multiplying factor. It is submitted that at no point of time consumer has raised any issue with regard to the correctness of the recording of the consumption in the meter. It is submitted that CGRF has misconstrued the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 870. According to him, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is open for the electricity company to correct the electricity bill where a wrong bill is issued for bonafide mistake and that non application of the correct multiplying factor is a bonafide mistake and therefore allowed to be corrected.

5. Learned counsel for the consumer has supported the impugned order by contending that the CGRF has taken into consideration the fact that during 2020 it was a period of lockdown owing to Covid-19 pandemic situation and that the bill has been issued on an average of prior meter readings. It is submitted that since the bill was issued with multiplier of one, the consumer did not raise any objection with regard to the consumption of 51,700 shown in the month of November-2020 but now with application of 20 multiplier, huge bill is raised. It is argued that there is difference in the meter number mentioned in two different reports which according to him is sufficient to demonstrate that the possibility of meter being faulty is not ruled out.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is just and necessary to see as to the nature of disp