Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), challenged an order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in Case No. 071 of 2022. The respondent, a consumer running Hotel Blue Diamond, had been allotted an electricity connection with a load of 24.50 KW. In 2020, the consumer applied for a Solar Rooftop net metering connection of 18.5 KW, which was sanctioned on 09.06.2020. The meter and current transformers (CT) were tested and found suitable. In November 2020, the solar connection was released by installing tested meters and CTs. Subsequently, bills were issued based on meter readings. In May 2022, MSEDCL conducted a scrutiny and found that the meter installed was of 5/5A rating connected to 100/5A CTs, and the multiplying factor (MF) which should have been 20 was wrongly punched as 1. Consequently, a supplementary bill for Rs. 7,35,010/- was issued on 26.06.2022 for the differential amount from November 2020 to May 2022. The consumer challenged the bill before CGRF, which partially allowed the grievance by directing MSEDCL to revise the bill considering only 793 units for November 2020, after adjusting payments, and waiving interest. The CGRF held that the mistake was not bonafide and that the consumption of 51,700 units recorded in November 2020 was absurd given the COVID-19 lockdown and the consumer's average consumption. MSEDCL argued that the CGRF misapplied the Supreme Court judgment in Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., which permits correction of bonafide mistakes. The consumer supported the CGRF order, contending that the bill was issued during lockdown and the consumer did not object earlier due to the low multiplier. The High Court examined the CGRF's findings and noted that the CGRF had accepted the bonafide mistake of MSEDCL regarding the wrong MF but then held the mistake as not bonafide. The Court observed that the CGRF's estimate of 793 units for November 2020 was based on average consumption during lockdown without any expert opinion or evidence. The Court held that the CGRF's order was not sustainable and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CGRF to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, including expert evidence if necessary. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Correction of Bill - Bonafide Mistake - The electricity company can recover the differential amount due to incorrect application of multiplying factor as a bonafide mistake, following the principle in Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. - CGRF erred in holding the mistake as non-bonafide and in estimating consumption without proper evidence - Held that the matter requires reconsideration by CGRF (Paras 9-13). B) Electricity Law - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum - Powers - CGRF cannot substitute its own estimate of consumption without supporting evidence or expert opinion - The estimate of 793 units based on average consumption during lockdown was not justified - Held that CGRF must decide afresh after giving opportunity to both parties (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) was justified in directing the electricity company to revise the supplementary bill by estimating consumption at 793 units for November 2020, instead of allowing recovery based on the correct multiplying factor.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by CGRF in Case No. 071 of 2022 and remanded the matter to CGRF for fresh consideration. The CGRF is directed to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, including expert evidence if necessary. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Law Points
- Electricity company can correct bonafide mistake in billing
- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum cannot substitute its own estimate without evidence
- Multiplying factor error is a bonafide mistake
