Indian Oil–Adani Gas Held Liable for Unfair Trade Practice Over Five-Year Retrospective PNG Bill
Pranav B Prem
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 evidence to prove that the consumer’s gas meter was defective.
The complaint was filed by Deepak Marwaha, who owns a residential property in Sector 46-C, Chandigarh, where his uncle and aunt have been residing for more than two decades. He had obtained a domestic PNG connection from the company in 2018, after which he regularly paid all bills raised until May 2023. On 29 May 2023, he received a sudden bill of ₹29,622 covering the period from 31 August 2018 to 15 March 2023. When he enquired, he was informed that the meter had allegedly been faulty since installation and that earlier bills were generated on pro-rata or minimum charges. The company later revised the demand to ₹21,833 after adjusting previous payments.
The complainant immediately disputed the demand by sending emails on 31 May and 2 June 2023, calling the retrospective billing arbitrary and unjustified. In response, the company claimed that during an AMC inspection, it had found that the meter was not working “from the beginning” and had therefore recalculated consumption as per norms. Alleging that the company had acted without notice, explanation, or technical proof, and had shifted the burden of its own negligence onto him, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking cancellation of the revised bill and compensation for harassment.
In defence, the opposite parties argued that the meter had shown negligible or zero consumption for years and that the AMC team had discovered the fault during its visit. They contended that the revised billing was lawfully prepared after adjusting earlier payments and that there was no deficiency in service. However, the Commission rejected this explanation after examining the material on record. The billing history produced by the company itself showed that out of 24 bills issued between 2018 and 2023, 16 were generated on actual readings, which directly contradicted the assertion that the complainant had been billed only on minimum charges throughout. By issuing actual bills, the company had implicitly acknowledged that the meter was functioning for most of the period.
The Commission also noted that the opposite parties had failed to produce any meter testing report, AMC inspection report, or any documentary proof showing that the meter was defective. It observed that the company had not explained what remedial steps it took after allegedly discovering the defect and why it had not repaired or replaced the meter during the five-year period. The order records that “no report of the alleged team that inspected the complainant’s premises has seen the light of the day” and questions how the company “suddenly woke up from their deep slumber” to realise in May 2023 that the meter was faulty since 2018. The Commission found the sudden leap in consumption shown in the impugned bill—26.03519 MMBTU as against 0.00590 MMBTU in the previous bill—to be “highly astronomical, beyond comprehension and merely on assumptions and presumptions.”
To reinforce its reasoning on burden of proof, the Commission relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2024) CPJ 66 (SC), which states that “he who asserts must prove.” Since it was the gas company that asserted the existence of a faulty meter, it was required to substantiate that assertion with cogent evidence, a burden it wholly failed to discharge. Mere allegations unsupported by documents, the Commission held, could not justify imposing a retrospective liability of such magnitude on the consumer.
Concluding that the company’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission allowed the complaint and set aside the revised bill of ₹21,833. It further directed Indian Oil–Adani Gas to pay the complainant ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses within 60 days, failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realisation.
Cause Title: Deepak Marwaha Vs. Indian Oil-Adani Gas Private Limited
Case No: CC/394/2023
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President), Brij Mohan Sharma (Member)
