Delhi High Court
B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs D.R. Bajaj & Another on 18 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1252/2007
B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. I.S. Alag and Mr. Rishabh
Bhutani, Advocate.
versus
D.R.BAJAJ & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
%
In spite of service, the respondent No.1 has not entered
appearance and is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2. The respondent No.1 had approached the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum making allegations that the three electronic meters
installed in his premises for recording electricity consumption of the
ground floor, first floor and second floor were defective and he was
wrongly billed and asked to pay excessive amounts. The respondent
No.1 had relied upon the average consumption pattern as recorded in
the electro mechanical meters before they were replaced by new
electronic meters on 10th May, 2005.
W.P.(C) No. 1252/2007 Page 1
3. The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum got the meter tested
from an independent laboratory, namely, CPRI, Delhi. The meters were
tested in the presence of the SDM of the area to ensure that test was
properly done and there was no tampering. As per the test report given
by the CPRI, the meters were found to be in permissible limits and were
not recording excessive consumption. In view of the said test reports,
the matter was disposed of vide order dated 2nd January, 2006, holding,
inter alia, that the meters were not defective.
4. The respondent No.1 thereafter approached the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman by the impugned order did not interfere with the
billing tariff/meter in respect of the ground floor and the first floor, but
came to the conclusion that the meter installed on the second floor
was defective and accordingly the petitioner herein was directed to
raise fresh bills for the period May, 2005 to September, 2006 after
taking the average of six months prior to the defective period and
average of six month after the defective period. The reason recorded
by the Ombudsman in the impugned order dated 19th October, 2006 is
that the consumption pattern for the ground floor and the first floor
W.P.(C) No. 1252/2007 Page 2
after replacement of the electro mechanical meters with the electronic
meters, had not shown appreciable jump or increase in consumption
but in the case of second floor, there was substantial increase in
consumption though there was no increase in connected load.
5. The consumption pattern for the months of October and
December 2004-2005 does show some increase but the same cannot
be called abnormal. As per the consumption chart placed on record,
the respondent had consumed 762 and 505 units in the month of
October and December 2004 and 1113 and 765 units in the
corresponding month in the year 2005. Similarly, in February 2005, the
respondent had consumed 497 units and in the month of February
2006 had consumed 1036 units. It is not possible to decipher any fixed
pattern, conclusion or inference from the said figures. It is apparent
that the Ombudsman has proceeded and relied upon irrelevant
material and facts and did not take into account the relevant document
i.e. the CPRI test report. The learned Ombudsman did not even bother
to examine the CPRI meter testing report. It is recorded that the said
report was not available with the Ombudsman.
6. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed and the
impugned order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the Ombudsman is
W.P.(C) No. 1252/2007 Page 3
set aside and quashed. The petitioners will write a letter to the
respondent No.1 asking him to make payment. In case the respondent
No.1 makes payment within 15 days from the date letter is served, no
late payment surcharge will be demanded/charged. Rs. 5,000/-
deposited in this Court will be refunded to the petitioner.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 18, 2010
NA
W.P.(C) No. 1252/2007 Page 4
