Consumer Forum Holds Indian Oil–Adani Gas Guilty of Unfair Trade Practice Over Retrospective Billing
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II, U.T. Chandigarh , comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has held Indian Oil–Adani Gas Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for issuing an “astronomical” retrospective PNG bill for nearly five years without any technical proof of a faulty meter.Facts of the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II, U.T. Chandigarh , comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has held Indian Oil–Adani Gas Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for issuing an “astronomical” retrospective PNG bill for nearly five years without any technical proof of a faulty meter.
Facts of the Case
The complainant, Deepak Marwaha, is the owner of a residential property in Sector 46-C, Chandigarh, where his uncle and aunt have been residing for over two decades. In 2018, he obtained a domestic PNG connection from Indian Oil–Adani Gas Pvt. Ltd. Acting on assurances by the company's agent, the connection was installed and, from 2018 till May 2023, the complainant regularly paid all bills raised by the gas company.
On 29 May 2023, the complainant received a bill amounting to ₹29,622, retrospectively covering the period from 31 August 2018 to 15 March 2023. Upon enquiry, the company claimed that the gas meter had been faulty since installation and that the complainant had been billed only on minimum/pro-rata charges. After adjustment of earlier payments, the demand was revised to ₹21,833.
Aggrieved, the complainant wrote emails on 31 May 2023 and 2 June 2023, disputing the demand and seeking rectification. In response, the company stated that during an AMC inspection, it was discovered that the meter had not been functioning from the beginning, leading to the revised billing. Alleging arbitrariness, lack of prior notice, and absence of proof, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission.
Complainant's Contentions
The complainant argued that he had always paid the gas bills regularly and was never informed that the meter was defective. He contended that issuing a huge retrospective bill for almost five years was arbitrary and that if the meter was faulty since installation, the opposite parties—not he—were responsible for detecting and rectifying it. He alleged deficiency in service and sought cancellation of the revised bill and compensation.
Opposite Parties' Contentions
The opposite parties submitted that the meter had shown negligible or zero consumption for years, and during the AMC inspection, it was found to be faulty. Therefore, they recalculated consumption as per norms and issued the corrected bill after adjusting previous payments. They denied any negligence, arguing that the revised billing was lawful and that no deficiency in service had occurred.
Observations and Decision of the Commission
The Commission noted that the gas company failed to produce any meter testing report, inspection record, or AMC report to substantiate its claim that the meter was faulty. On the contrary, the billing history placed on record by the company itself showed that 16 out of 24 bills were raised on actual readings, undermining the contention that the consumer had been billed only on minimum charges throughout.
The Commission also observed that the company could not explain why no remedial action—such as repair or replacement of the allegedly faulty meter—was taken for almost five years. Terming the sudden, astronomical bill as “beyond comprehension” and based purely on assumptions, the Commission held the action to be arbitrary.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2024) CPJ 66 (SC), the Commission reiterated the settled principle that “he who asserts must prove.” Since the gas company asserted that the meter was faulty, the burden lay on it to establish the same with cogent evidence—a burden it failed to discharge.
The Commission set aside the revised bill of ₹21,833 and allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite parties to pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses within 60 days, failing which interest @ 9% per annum would apply.
Case Title: Deepak Marwaha Vs. Indian Oil-Adani Gas Private Limited
Case No. CC/394/2023