Ghaziabad: On June 13, 2017, Vijaynagar resident Sundar Lal Sharma filed a complaint with District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) against UP Power Corporation Ltd (UPPCL) chairman and others.On July 30, DCDRC cancelled an electricity bill issued to the Sector 9 resident nine years ago. The bill — amounting to a staggering Rs 1,90,471 — had been issued by UPPCL on June 6, 2017.Commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, while hearing the matter ex parte, directed the subordinate offices of UPPCL to issue a revised electricity bill, adjusting all previous payments to the complainant, based on the actual meter reading and the prevailing power tariff, within 30 days from the date of the judgement.“The defendants will not disconnect the complainant’s electricity connection on the basis of the disputed bill and would jointly pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant for litigation expenses, mental and financial damages, within 30 days from the date of the judgement,” the commission ruled.The complaint was filed with the commission against UPPCL chairman, superintending engineer, electricity distribution board, Urban First, Kavinagar, executive engineer, sub-divisional officer and junior engineer against “an arbitrary and inflated bill” issued to him.Sharma said that he holds a two-kilowatt power connection from the defendants’ department. He paid his electricity bills regularly until March 2016. Due to a fault in the meter, the defendants replaced the old meter on May 28, 2016 and installed a new meter.After the department replaced the faulty meter, an incorrect electricity bill for Rs 81,017 was issued in Aug 2016. The department acknowledged the error and issued a revised bill for Rs 4,213 in Aug 2016, which he paid on Aug 12, the same year. The complainant was issued bills for Rs 1,155 in Sept 2016 and Rs 4,621 in Nov, which he paid on time.There was no outstanding payment, yet suddenly, the employees of the opposite parties, in an arbitrary manner, issued a new bill of Rs 1,88,920 without giving any reason, for which the complainant complained verbally and in writing to the superintending engineer.On May 27, 2017, a full and final electricity bill of Rs 38,786 was issued to the complainant for the period from Dec 2016 to May 2017, which he again paid on June 1, 2017, even though the complainant’s bill was pending since Jan 2017 only.Despite depositing the said erroneous bill on June 1, a bill of Rs 1,90,471 was issued again on June 6. Sharma said that when he went to get the bill of Rs 1,90,471 cancelled, people at the superintending engineer’s office demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000.Notices were sent to the opposite party by registered post, but despite adequate service, no one turned up, nor was a reply filed, following which the commission decided to proceed ex parte on May 6, 2022.The commission perused the written arguments filed by the complainant to decide if the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service or engaged in unfair trade practices towards the complainant.The commission said, “The meter sealing certificate available on the file clearly states that on May 28, 2016, the complainant’s meter was replaced by the department and thereafter the opposite party issued a bill for Rs 81,017 in Aug 2016, which was later revised by the department to Rs 4,213. This establishes the fact that the previously issued bill by the department was erroneous. It is also proved from the payment bills and receipts available on the file that the complainant had paid the revised bill and the bills issued thereafter. The bill showed a balance of only Rs 296 and the total amount payable was Rs 3,226. Despite this, on Jan 30, 2017, the defendants suddenly issued a bill for Rs 1,88,920. It is also clear from the records that on May 27, 2017, the department again issued a demand bill for Rs 38,786, showing consumption of 2,758 units for approximately five months from Dec to May, which was paid by the complainant.”“Shortly after the payment, on June 6, 2017, the defendants again issued a bill for Rs 1,90,471, adding Rs 1,88,920 as a debit, showing the total amount payable as Rs 190,485. It is clear from this that the demand of Rs 1,90,471 was not an independent calculation, but the disputed amount of Rs 1,88,920 issued earlier was again added to the consumer’s account. Based on the above discussion, Commission concludes that the opposite party has engaged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practices,” it added.
