Electricity Bill Dispute Must Go To CGRF; Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Forum's Order Against UPCL

Brief Facts

The complainant's father had been allotted a domestic electricity connection bearing No. 681/0707/019006 with meter No. 530172 (1 KW) by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (Opposite Party). After his father's death, the complainant continued to use the same connection. On 20-03-2015, the Opposite Party issued an electricity bill of Rs. 75,560/- toward outstanding charges, which the complainant paid in full on 25-03-2015.

Thereafter, the Electricity Department removed the existing electricity meter and installed a new electronic meter No. 50574904. On 04-09-2016,following which an electricity bill for a sum of Rs. 84,595/- was issued to the complainant without providing details of the arrears and outstanding electricity charges. The complainant, receiving the bill approached the opposite party for rectification. However, the Electricity Department refused to rectify the bill and further warned to disconnect the electricity connection.

Despite issuing repeated legal notices, the complainant received no rectification of the disputed bill. He therefore approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar. The District Commission allowed the complaint, cancelled the disputed bill, and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Party filed an appeal before the State Commission.

Arguments by the Parties

The Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (Opposite party) argued that the dispute was a billing issue falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2005, and that the District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by cancelling the bill and awarding litigation costs. Furthermore, the counsel contended that the complainant was not a consumer under the act as the connection originally stood in the name of his deceased father, and he had never taken steps to mutate the connection into his own name.

Raja Ram, the complainant, argued that he had fully complied with all directions of the Electricity Department and was unjustly issued a baseless bill. He maintained that he had already settled the outstanding amount of Rs. 75,560/-, yet the opposite party issued an exorbitant bill of Rs. 84,595/- without providing any details of arrears. The counsel further submitted that the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Act, as he had paid the pending charges and was a beneficiary of service who had provided consideration, thereby falling within the definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Observations by the Commission

The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its order, disagreed with the findings of the District Commission. The Commission observed that since the issue between the parties was related to the rectification of the electricity bill, it fell within the specialised mechanism created under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Commission noted that because the Act is a Special Act and overrides general legal provisions, disputes related to billing must be taken up before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in accordance with Section 42(5).

However, the Commission, while dealing with the maintainability of the complaint, rejected the argument of the opposite party that the complainant was not a consumer under the Act. It noted that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a beneficiary who avails services for consideration qualifies as a consumer. It noted that by paying Rs. 75,560/- and the subsequent bills, the complainant qualified as a consumer.

The Commission observed that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. It held that the District Commission had failed to take into account the relevant provisions of law and had not properly examined the facts and law. The Commission further held that the consumer complaint filed before the District Commission was not maintainable, as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain matters reserved for the CGRF. Consequently, it allowed the appeal, set aside the District Forum's order, and granted the complainant liberty to approach the CGRF for appropriate relief.

Case Title: Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Raja Ram SC/5/A/13/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order