Ghaziabad Consumer Commission Clarifies Electricity Billing, Orders Compensation for 2001 Meter Issue
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ghaziabad has provided clarity in a recent electricity billing dispute involving the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). While the commission confirmed that the consumer was not overcharged for electricity usage, it has directed the power corporation to pay compensation for failing to reimburse expenses from over two decades ago.
Commission's Detailed Calculation Brings Transparency
Presided over by President Praveen Kumar Jain along with members Shailja Sachan and R P Singh, the commission on August 25 presented a simplified breakdown of how consumer M C Gupta was charged Rs 9,300 for three months of electricity consumption. The detailed analysis aimed to address the consumer's concerns about unexpectedly high billing.
The commission explained the calculation methodology: The last reading on the old meter was recorded at 40,652 units on May 16, 2024, before the meter was sealed on July 14, 2024. Laboratory testing of the defective meter revealed a final reading of 41,908 units, indicating consumption of 1,256 units during the period when the meter was malfunctioning. Additionally, the new meter installed recorded 551 units until August 28, 2024.
This resulted in a total consumption of 1,807 units over three months—June, July, and August. At the rate of Rs 6.5 per unit, the total amount came to Rs 11,745. The corporation appropriately deducted the amount already deposited by the consumer based on averaged bills from previous months, resulting in the final demand of Rs 9,300.
Two-Decade-Old Grievance Leads to Compensation Order
Despite finding the electricity billing to be accurate, the consumer commission identified a separate deficiency in service dating back to 2001. Resident M C Gupta of Chiranjeev Vihar had approached the commission on October 1, 2024, with a complaint that highlighted long-standing issues with the power corporation.
In his submission, Gupta stated, "I purchased a house from Ansal Builders and applied for a power connection in 2001. The junior engineer of UPPCL at that time instructed me to purchase a digital meter and cable from the market as these items were not available at the electricity office. Several years later, when the department procured bulk meters, they replaced my purchased meter with a new one but never reimbursed me for the cost of the meter and cables."
The situation escalated in May 2024 when UPPCL informed Gupta that his meter was malfunctioning and needed replacement. During this period, the corporation sealed the meter and assured that power consumption would be calculated by averaging previous months' readings. However, the subsequent electricity bill of Rs 9,300 raised concerns as it appeared significantly higher than his average consumption patterns.
UPPCL's Defense and Commission's Final Ruling
UPPCL's legal representative argued that the billing was justified, explaining that the amount was calculated based on average consumption from previous months. The corporation further clarified, "Once a new meter was installed, the power consumption was calculated according to the meter reading and adjusted against the bill already paid by the consumer." Detailed calculations were submitted to substantiate the demand for Rs 9,300.
After thorough examination of both sides, the commission ruled that while the electricity billing was accurate, UPPCL was deficient in service for not reimbursing the consumer for the meter and cables he was compelled to purchase in 2001. This failure constituted mental agony and unnecessary litigation costs for the consumer.
Accordingly, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered UPPCL to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for the mental distress and legal expenses incurred by the consumer. This decision underscores the importance of utility providers honoring their commitments to consumers, even when those obligations span decades.
The case highlights how consumer forums in India are addressing both contemporary billing disputes and historical grievances, ensuring that service deficiencies are properly acknowledged and compensated regardless of when they occurred.
