$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28^th January, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6112/2018 and CM APPL. 23725/2018 SAURABH PRUTHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Advocate.

versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates along with Mr. Amit Singh, AGM, Legal.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to order dated 09.01.2018 passed in C.G.No.7625/04/17/NRL by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (‘CGRF’) and order dated 25.04.2018 passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal No.05/2018 in respect of bill of Rs.20,92,320/- (including Assessment Bill of Rs.15,68,204.20 p.) raised against the Petitioner in connection with CA No.60017874730 installed at Plot No. G-978, DSIDC Narela Industrial Area, Delhi.

2. As per the case set out by the Petitioner in the writ petition, Petitioner along with his father is a tenant of the subject premises and is using electricity connection through his CA No.60017874730 having sanctioned load of 108 KW for industrial purposes, which was sanctioned in the name Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6112/2018 Page 1 of 8 of Sh. Darshan Kumar. The initial connection was sanctioned on 25.03.2014 with load of 80 KW and meter was installed on the same day with meter No.93403843. At the time of installation, accuracy of the meter was checked and reported to be +00.28%. Inspection was carried out by the Respondent on 09.11.2015 and at that time, all seals were found to be intact and ‘OK’. Under the Head ‘Observation’, it was mentioned that meter data could not be downloaded due to communication failure between the meter and Common Meter Reading Instrument (‘CMRI’). Voltage and current parameters were checked between the meter display and clamp meter.

3. It is averred that the meter was replaced by the Respondent on 23.11.2015 with a new meter and a bill of Rs.1,00,439/-, for the period 07.11.2015 to 23.11.2015 was raised under Clause 43(1) of DERC Regulations, 2007 (‘2007 Regulations’) and the amount was reflected in the bill for the month of December, 2015. Under threat of disconnection of electricity, Petitioner paid the bill. Petitioner applied for enhancement of the load on behalf of the registered consumer and thereafter a demand of Rs.42,000/- was raised on 15.07.2016 and this amount was also paid by the Petitioner, after which the load was increased to 108 KW. A bill of Rs.20,92,320/- was raised by the Respondent, which included an amount of Rs.15,68,204.20 p. on account of assessment under the head ‘Adjustment’. The amount was added for the period 25.05.2015 to 24.11.2015 i.e. for six months, considering that the meter was found to be slow by 67% and two times bill was raised albeit the meter was never slow by 67% as alleged.

4. It is averred that the meter was tested by the Respondent in Electronics and Quality Development Centre (‘EQDC’) on 22.12.2015 and it was observed in the laboratory that CT pins were found loose on visual Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6112/2018 Page 2 of 8 observation but there were no physical abnormalities inside the meter. Data of the meter was analysed and it was observed as follows:-

“(a) …………….

(b) Events recorded in Meter date:

. Current Terminal Open Counts: 42 & Cumulative Duration: 009 days:

09m hours:29 minutes.

. Current Bypass Counts: 19 & Cumulative Duration:002 days:07 hours:

08 minutes.

(c) Under what conditions (mentioned herein below), events get recorded in Meter data:

. Current Terminal Open: When Meter senses less than the defined threshold value, then Meter records this particular event.

. Current Bypass: When Meter senses different current between 2/3 phases than the defined threshold value, then Meter records this particular event.”

5. Petitioner filed a writ peti