Electricity distribution company (petitioner) contesting an order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) on November 15, 2022, regarding a billing dispute. The dispute arose from a rooftop solar net metering connection requested by the respondent (consumer), which led to an error in the application of the multiplying factor (MF) used to calculate the bill.

Background:

1. The consumer was allotted an electricity connection with a 24.50 KW load and later applied for a solar rooftop net metering connection of 18.5 KW, which was sanctioned and installed in November 2020.
2. The electricity company, during a routine check, discovered that the multiplying factor for the new setup was incorrectly applied as 1 instead of 20. This error led to underbilling. Based on this discovery, a revised bill of ₹7,35,010 was issued on June 26, 2022.

Consumer's Grievance:

The consumer approached the CGRF, claiming that they should not be penalized for the electricity company's mistake. They also highlighted that during the COVID-19 lockdown, their hotel’s occupancy was low, and it was impossible to consume 51,700 units in one month as indicated by the meter reading.

CGRF Order:

The CGRF observed that:

• The mistake in applying the wrong multiplying factor was admitted.
• The average monthly consumption based on historical data and considering the lockdown conditions would be around 793 units, not 51,700 units.
• The CGRF ordered a revised bill based on 793 units for November 2020, with adjustments for previous payments and waiver of interest.

Petitioner's Argument:

The electricity company contends that:

• The CGRF misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., which allows correction of bills in case of bonafide errors.
• The incorrect application of the multiplying factor was a bonafide mistake, and therefore, the revised bill was justified.

Legal Precedents Discussed:

The case also involves reference to the Supreme Court’s judgments in K.C. Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and other cases, which elaborate on:

• The statutory power of electricity companies to recover dues, including errors discovered later.
• The limitations imposed by Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which restrict recovery actions to within two years from when the sum became due unless it was continuously shown as arrears.

Conclusion:

The key issue revolves around whether the electricity company can demand payment based on the revised multiplying factor despite the delay in discovering the error and considering the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 lockdown. The CGRF’s order favoring the consumer is challenged by the electricity company based on their right to correct bonafide billing errors.