Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 31671
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial Member
Anil Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 352/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Kumar Gill
For the Respondents: Paritosh Singh Rajput
A consumer cannot claim deficiency of service for non-receipt of electricity bills if they fail to exercise their right to self-assessment under the applicable regulations and continue to consume electricity without any payment for an extended period.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Electricity - Non-receipt of bill - Self-assessment - Obligation of consumer - Consumer cannot enjoy electricity for over 15 years without payment or attempt at self-assessment under relevant regulations - Held, consumer is liable to pay for actual consumption.
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - District Commission directed respondent to calculate bill based on 10KW load - Appellant’s contention that bill revision sheet was ignored found to be incorrect - Held, no ground to interfere with factual findings of the District Commission.
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged the dismissal of his consumer complaint regarding electricity bills raised by the respondent. The appellant alleged that despite his requests since 1993, the respondent failed to raise bills for years. Eventually, a bill with a 21KW load was issued. An enforcement inspection in 2005 detected tampering and a connected load of 21KW, leading to an 'escaped demand' bill.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appellant failed to prove deficiency of service. The appellant admitted to using electricity without payment for years, failing to utilize the self-assessment mechanism available under the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards- Metering & Billing) Regulations, 2002. The court found the impugned bill legal based on consumption data.
Issues: Whether the respondent was deficient in service for failing to bill the appellant for years, and whether the escaped demand bill based on a 21KW load was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Consumers have a duty to pay for electricity consumed. Non-receipt of bills does not absolve the consumer of payment obligations, especially when they failed to follow the self-assessment procedures prescribed in the regulations. Appellate courts will not interfere with findings based on evidence unless perversity is shown.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of lower court proceedings and facts of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of appellant and respondent arguments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. court's initial observations regarding the long period of unbilled consumption. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. application of derc regulations on self-assessment obligation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. final determination maintaining the validity of the escaped demand and upholding the lower court order. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
PER : HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed on 13.05.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.1557/2008 wherein the complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North-West District) CSC, Block-C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
2. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“1. In brief facts of the present case are that the electricity meter K No.34504019996 (old K No.Z504/175505) was installed in the year 1993 at D-133 Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi being used for purely domestic purpose. It is stated that the OP and the erstwhile DVB/DESU have been negligent in their services from the very beginning. It is further stated that the bills were not raised. The complainant lodged many protests and made frequent visits at the office of the erstwhile DVB. Many written complaint were also made. But the OP failed to rectify their mistakes and did not raise the bills for several years.
2. It is stated that OP took over from the erstwhile DVB with many false promises to the citizen of Delhi. It is further stated that complainant had hoped that his miseries would now end and he would now get goods services and his voice would be heard, but the attitude and functioning of the OP became even worst than there predecessors. It is stated that the bills were still not raised and the complainant made several visits to the office of OP and also lodged written complaint dated 06.08.2007 but all in vain.
3. It is stated that the sanctioned load of the complainant from the very beginning was 10KW but due to error on the part of OP and due to gross negligence the bills were raised on the basis of 21KW and till date the OP has not cured this error and continuously raised the bill on the basis of 21KW. It is stated that complainant is liable to pay the bill on the basis of 10KW only and all the bills paid by complainant needs to be revised according to sanctioned load of 10KW and excess illegal amount claimed by OP needs to refunded.
4. It is stated that on visit to the office of OP, the complainant was advised by the staff of OP to make a formal request for load correction by filing an attribute letter and complainant made formal request on 06.05.2008 and copy of the same filed on record. It is further stated that meanwhile the meter got burnt due to short circuit and complainant made a complaint no.5043031 dated 20.04.2008 and also made the call at call center of NDPL. It is further stated that a separate letter dated 21.04.2008 duly received by OP for the burnt meter and same is filed on record.
5. It is stated that complainant took all the necessary steps to get his problem resolved but OP did not raise the bills as per request. It is further stated that finally OP raised a bill dated 31.01.2008 amounting to Rs.1,31,290/-, which was never received by complainant than complainant had to visit office of OP and procure the duplicate copy of the bill. It is further stated that the staff of OP told that this bill includes all the past and present arrears and was update demand. It is stated that complainant has disputed the bill and without prejudice to his rights paid the said bill in four installments with the hope that his miseries would be finally over. The copies of receipts of payment are filed on record.
6. It is stated that the burnt met
