IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 01.08.2024 Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 507/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. RAM KUMAR MEENA, S/O MR. AMAR CHAND MEENA, R/O HOUSE NO. 61, POCKET A-1, SECTOR-03, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.

(Through: Ms. Minakshi Meena and Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocates)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. TPDDL (FORMERLY NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.), THROUGH ITS MANAGER, HUDSON LINE, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI-110009.

(Through: Mr. Paritosh Singh Rajput, Advocate)

…Respondent No. 1

2. DELHI POLICE (POLICE HEAD QUARTER), MSO BUILDING, ITO, NEW DELHI-110002.

…Respondent No. 2 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Ms. Minakshi Meena & Mr. Akshay Kumar, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Harish Purohit, AR of the Respondent. E-mail:

consumercare@tatapower-ddl.com.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

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

“1. Brief facts of the present case are that OP is a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Hudson Lines, Kingsway camp, Delhi, who is engaged in the business of distribution of electricity and providing services related thereto and the complainant is an Inspector in Delhi Police and has been allotted a government accommodation/quarter no. D-5, Police Lines, Delhi-110085, in 1993, hereinafter referred to as the “Accommodation". All the documents relating to allotment of said accommodation are filed on record. It stated that the complainant had been consuming the electricity and the services provided by the OP and has also regularly been paying the electricity bills against the recorded consumption, since the allotment of the said accommodation in 1993.

2. It is stated that the electricity connection vide K No. 1PP5061748859 with sanctioned load of 2.76 KW had been installed in the Accommodation of the complainant by the OP in 1993 but subsequently a new K No.3440017 4885L with the same sanctioned load of 2.76 KW was allotted to the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had regularly been paying the bills since the installation of the connection, against the said electricity connection nos., as and when bills were raised by the OP and received by the complainant. It is stated that lastly the complainant deposited electricity bill no. 0409616836 for the month of September 2004 with due date 13.10.2004 amounting to Rs.1890, for the consumed 625 units and upto 1755 units as recorded from the meter by the OP on 02.09.2004. It is further stated that the complainant was shocked, stunned and surprised to receive electricity bill no.0411053660, for the month of November 2004 with due date 09.12.2004 amounting to Rs.40,970 showing debit/arrears amount of Rs.39,644.36p, but there were no details of the alleged debit/arrears amount shown in the electricity bill by the OP. It is further stated that as per the details given in the bill current units was taken upto 2231 units and consumption shown in this bill was of only 476 units. Copy of the said bill dated 18.11.2004 is filed on record.

3. It is stated that complainant approached the regional/local billing office of the OP for rectification of the frivolous inflated bill and asked the reason for negligence and gross mistake, officials of the OP apologized about the frivolous inflated bill but failed to provide any satisfactory answer or reason thereto, and they gave the reason for mixing up the data in their computers. It is stated that officials in the office assured the complainant that this frivolous inflated bill would soon be rectified and the complainant shall get a corrected/revised bill very soon and then only he should make the payment. It is stated that the complainant gave his complaint in writing to the officials of the OP and OP issued the acknowledgment slip no.53190, to the complainant. It is stated that com