$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 141/2025, CM APPL. 11329/2025 & CM APPL. 11330/2025 SAURABH PRUTHI ...Appellant Through: Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Advocate.

versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD ...Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr.

Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg and Mr. Yash, Advocates and Mr. Amit Singh, AGM Legal.

% Date of Decision: 25^th February, 2025 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGEMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J : (ORAL)

1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgement dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 6112/2018 titled Saurabh Pruthi vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. filed by the appellant.

2. It is the case of the appellant that he along with his father are tenants of the premises at plot no.G-978, DSIDC Narela Industrial Area, Delhi and are using electricity connection through CA No.60017874730 having sanctioned load of 108 KW for industrial purposes, which was sanctioned in the name of Sh. Darshan Kumar. It is stated that an inspection was carried out by the respondent on 09.11.2015 and at the time, all seals were found to be intact. However, the meter reading could Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 141/2025 Page 1 of 6 not be downloaded due to technical reasons and accordingly, the meter of the appellant was replaced by the respondent on 23.11.2015 with a new meter and a bill of Rs.1,00,439/- was raised under Regulation 43(i) of the DERC’s Supply Code & Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 (hereafter referred as ‘DERC Supply Code, 2007’), for the period from 07.11.2015 to 23.11.2015, which was duly paid by the appellant.

3. It is further stated that the old meter was subjected to a testing protocol by Electronics and Quality Development Centre (hereafter referred as ‘EQDC’) on 22.12.2015 and it was observed thereby that the meter was running slow by 63.13% due to loose CT pins. It is the case of the appellant that thereafter, a bill of Rs.20,92,320/- was raised by the respondent which included an amount of Rs.15,68,204.20p on account of assessment under the head ‘Adjustment’, for the period from 25.05.2015 to 24.11.2015 i.e. for 6 months.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 2868/2017 however, the same was withdrawn on 31.03.2017 with liberty to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereafter referred as ‘CGRF’). Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF which was dismissed on 09.01.2018. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman which also stood dismissed on 25.04.2018, constraining the appellant to file the underlying writ petition.

5. Vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025, learned Single Judge dismissed the underlying writ petition of the appellant holding that as per the Test Report of EQDC, which was not challenged by the appellant, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 141/2025 Page 2 of 6 the meter was found to be running slow by 63.13% and not registering the correct consumption, hence the appellant was liable to pay the difference due to the defect in the meter at normal rates, as calculated by the respondent in terms of Regulation 38(f) of the DERC Supply Code, 2007. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was filed.

6. Mr. B.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent has raised two different bills for the same meter. He attempted to explain that a bill of Rs.1,00,439/- was already raised by the respondent under Regulation 43(i) for the period from 07.11.2015 to 23.11.2015, however, arbitrarily, another bill was raised for the period from 25.05.2015 to 24.11.2015, which overlaps the 17 days period for which the bill stands duly paid by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel also contends that though the Test Report indicates that the electricity meter in question was found to be running slow