CC No.18/2016

V.A.Vasudevaraju “Valli Illam” 5, SixthCross Street, Brindavan, Puducherry-605013 .. Complainant Vs

1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. Secretary(Electricity), Govt. of Puducherry, Puducherry.

3. Superintending Engineer-I, Electricity Department, Puducherry.

4. Executive Engineer-I, Electricity Department, Perumal Koil Street, Puducherry.

5. Assistant Engineer-Town II, Electricity Department, Perumal Koiil Street, Puducherry.

6. Junior Engineer, Electricity Department, Venkata Nagar, Puducherry.

.. Opposite Parties

(Memorandum of Appeal amended as per order in M.A.No.26/2025, dt.09.07.2025)

BEFORE:

DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, PRESIDING MEMBER

TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANTS

Thiru.S.Sridhar, Government Pleader

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Thiru.S.Vimal, Advocate

O R D E R

(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member)

1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (District Commission in short hereafter) in CC No.18 of 2016 wherein the District Commission found the services of the appellant herein (Electricity Department, Puducherry) to be deficient and awarded compensation. The complaint was filed by V.A. Vasudevaraju, a consumer of the Electricity Department in Puducherry, following a series of billing disputes and service failures that began in 2011.

The narrative of his complaint is as follows:

2. The issue originated when the complainant received abnormally high monthly energy bills for April 2011, July 2012, and August 2012, which amounted to Rs. 3,583, Rs. 33,547, and Rs. 87,724, respectively. Despite sending multiple written representations via speed post to various officials in the Electricity Department requesting bill revisions, he received no corrective action or formal reply. Instead, in October 2012, the department sent him a brief letter demanding a payment of Rs.85,002/- without providing any itemized details.

3. The complainant contended that the department failed in its duty to maintain and replace defective electricity meters promptly. He further alleged that while the department refused to correct the disputed bills, they also followed a practice of refusing to accept payments for subsequent normal monthly bills until the disputed arrears were cleared. This cycle led the department to resort to removing his fuse and disconnecting his power three times without notice, which the complainant viewed as an attempt to force payment while the dispute was still pending.

4. Before approaching the Consumer Commission, the complainant had filed a case with the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) in 2013. The Forum ruled in his favor, directing the department to drop a claim for Rs. 49,900 and issue corrected bills. However, the complainant alleged that instead of returning this money to him, the department adjusted the amount toward future monthly bills without his consent. Additionally, the department continued to collect "Belated Payment Surcharges" (BPSC), which the complainant argued was unjustified because the payment delays were caused by the department's own refusal to issue correct bills and accept regular payments.

5. The complainant, a reputable senior citizen and a retired IAS officer, stated that these actions caused him significant mental agony for five years and damaged his reputation in his neighborhood due to the repeated disconnections. Consequently, he sought the following reliefs:

1.Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation.

2.Replacement of defective meters and issuance of prompt, correct bills.

3.Penal interest on the Rs. 49,900 held by the department without his approval.

4.The return of unjustified belated payment surcharges and reimbursement of litigation costs.

6. In response to the complaint, the Electricity Department (the opposite parties) presented several arguments justifying their actions and question