Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Forum’s Order Against UPCL; Holds Electricity Billing Disputes Must Go Before CGRF
Pranav B Prem
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, consisting of President Kumkum Rani and Member C.M. Singh, allowed the appeal filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) and set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar, which had cancelled a disputed electricity bill and awarded compensation to the complainant. The State Commission held that the dispute was not maintainable before the District Forum, as issues relating to billing are exclusively triable by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in terms of Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Detailed Factual Background
The electricity connection in dispute (No. 681/0707/019006, meter No. 530172) was sanctioned in the name of the complainant’s father Late Shri Roda Singh. After his father’s death, the complainant continued to use the same connection without applying for mutation. On 20.03.2015, the complainant received a bill of ₹75,560 toward full settlement of outstanding charges and deposited the amount on 25.03.2015. Thereafter, the Corporation installed a new electronic meter (No. 50574904), and subsequent bills of ₹742, ₹227, ₹339 and ₹220 were issued and paid.
Meanwhile, the earlier meter was sent to the laboratory because there was no display. The test report revealed 15624 units of unrecorded consumption, which had not been billed earlier because IDF (Inoperative Display Function) bills had been generated from January 2014 to January 2016. Based on this finding, the Corporation prepared a fresh bill in March 2016 after adding ₹51,366 toward unbilled consumption, and due to non-payment of this revised bill, the amount accumulated to ₹82,666. After a deduction of ₹8,105, a new bill of ₹74,548 was generated on 14.09.2016, which remained unpaid. The complainant, however, continued to assert that he had already cleared the earlier dues and that the fresh bill was baseless.
The complainant issued a legal notice dated 06.09.2016 to UPCL but, receiving no rectification, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar, which allowed the complaint, cancelled the bill of ₹84,595, directed issuance of a fresh bill after adjusting the earlier payment of ₹75,560, and granted ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
Grounds Raised in Appeal
In appeal, UPCL argued that the District Forum ignored the statutory bar of jurisdiction, because billing disputes must be adjudicated exclusively by the CGRF. It was also argued that the complainant was not a consumer since the connection was not mutated in his name. UPCL further submitted consumer billing history from 23.01.2008 to 04.11.2019, showing that the revised bills were based on actual consumption and the complaint deserved dismissal.
The complainant maintained that he had complied with all lawful requirements of the corporation and that the bills were issued without furnishing arrear details. He reiterated that by paying the outstanding ₹75,560 and subsequent bills, he qualified as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Findings & Reasoning of the Commission
The State Commission analyzed the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and held that the complainant, by paying electricity charges after the death of his father, became a beneficiary of services and thus qualified as a consumer — rejecting UPCL’s objection regarding locus.
However, on the question of jurisdiction, the Commission held that the District Forum had failed to consider the binding statutory scheme of the Electricity Act. The order states that the Electricity Act is a Special Act that overrides general laws, and by virtue of Section 42(5), disputes relating to electricity bills must be referred to the CGRF for adjudication. The Commission observed that “the present dispute should have been referred for decision to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum” and the complaint should not have been filed before the District Forum.
Holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of UPCL, the State Commission set aside the judgment dated 16.08.2019 of the District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint as not maintainable. At the same time, it granted the complainant liberty to approach the CGRF within three months, and directed that if he files a complaint before the Forum, it shall not be treated as time-barred. The statutory amount deposited by UPCL is to be returned to it.
Cause Title: Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Raja Ram
Case No: SC/5/A/13/2020
Coram: President Kumkum Rani, Member C.M. Singh
