IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 10.01.2024 Date of Hearing: 13.12.2024 Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 43/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. KHAJAN SINGH, S/O MR. RAM NARAIN, R/O VILLAGE MANGOL PUR KALAN, DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Vishal Vashishth, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DISTRICT MANAGER, DISTRICT ROHINI, SHAKTIDEEP BUILDING, SECTOR-3, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.

(Through: Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Vishal Vashishth, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. ...the complainant is the user of K No. 44100137405 sanctioned for 1 KW for domestic purposes and for also using another K No. 44100137406 sanctioned for commercial purpose.

2. It is stated that OP put up a huge burden of false and baseless bill No. 0804092794 for a sum of Rs 2,06,357/- for the month of April 2008. The meter of K No. 44100137405 bearing No. 9902770 is very old and cleared the age of 17 years and till date was not working properly. The complainant made many complaints to OP but no solutions was made out.

3. It is further stated that a request on 28.11.2007 given by the complainant to the needful as there is deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP rendering servicers to the complainant. It is the mandatory duty of OP to check the meters periodically specifically mentioned under rule 46 and 57 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and regulations 19 of Delhi Regulatory Commission, Regulations 2002 and Regulation 38 of DERC supply code 2007. The OP didn't perform mandatory duty meter never tested but a false and erroneous bill for a sum of Rs 2,06,357/- issued showing the consumption of units as 52795 which was for the first time in the march 2008 prior to this reading was 2400 therefore the bill is false, baseless and abuse of process of law.

4. It is stated that the sanctioned load is 1 KW and MDI never exceeded this limit. The Meter No. 9902770 accorded inflated readings. The complainant is a poor man and trapped by OP. It is further stated that on enquiry it was revealed by the OP that this is a N.C. Jam case and in such case amount never exceeds Rs. 4,000/-. Hence present complaint filed seeking withdrawal of impugned bill No. 0804092794 for a sum of Rs 2,06,357/- for the month of April 2008, to pay litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and restrain from disconnecting electricity supply with respect of K No. 44100137405.

5. Notice was issued to OP who appeared and detailed Written Statement. In the WS OP has taken preliminary objections that present complaint is without any cause of action in fact complainant is defaulter / irregular in making payments of consumption bills therefore cannot take advantage of his own wrongs therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. On merits all the allegations are denied. It is stated that detailed statement of account filed on record according to which complainant is defaulter in making payments. It is stated that bills are raised as per reading and the bill of march 2008 of Rs. 2,02,280/- is correct as it is as per reading of approximately 51 months showing 55195 and the previous reading was 2400 on 03.01.2004 therefore the net consumption is 52795. It is further stated that meter is not faulty or fast.

7. It is stated that as per request of complainant dated

28.11.2007 no purpose has been mentioned but transpired that the purpose for a request of permanent disconnection to OK as the meter was on the site and was in use as per complainant.

8. It is stated that impugned bill is raised on the actual consumption. The meter installed for complainant is a mechanical meter with iron body and there is no