06/2019

CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM

M.S.E.D.C.L., PUNE ZONE, PUNE

Case No. 06/2019

Date of Grievance: 01.03.2019

Date of hearing : 02.04.2019
Date of Order : 09.05.2019

In the matter of faulty meter and its billing.

Mrs. Pranali Vichare, ---- APPELLANT
Eternal, Flat No. A, S. No.86, (Herein after referred to as Consumer)
Nr. Anjor Society,
Pune - 411045
(Consumer No. 160224611827 )

Versus

The Executive Engineer, ---- RESPONDENTS

M.S.E.D.C.L. (Herein after referred to as Licensee)
Shivajinagar Division,
Pune.

A] - On behalf of CGRF, Pune Zone, Pune.

1) Shri. A.P. Bhavathankar, Chairman, CGRF, PZ, Pune
2) Mrs. B.S. Savant, Member Secretary, CGRF, PZ, Pune
3) Mr. Anil Joshi, Member, CGRF, PZ, Pune.

B] - On behalf of Appellant
1) Mr. P.R.Vichare, Representative

C] - On behalf of Respondent
1) Mr. V.B. Pawar, AEE, Aundh Sub/Dn.
2) Mrs. H.C. Thakur, A.A.

Connecting load – 12 KW LT Residential, date of connection 03.11.2016

1
 06/2019

The above named consumer has been using the said supply for residential
purposes. During the year Nov. 2016, 2017 & 2018 the consumer was
continuously receiving electricity bills for allegedly abnormal reading towards
consumption of electricity together with wild variations in recording of the units
consumed during the billing periods under consideration. The claim of the
consumer about abnormal meter reading, as also wild fluctuations in the reading,
is also evident from copy of the CPL placed on record. The aggrieved consumer
had been following up his grievance with the authorities concerned of the
Respondent Utility in person followed by written applications, but in vain.
Resultantly, on 28.12.2018 the consumer preferred his grievance to IGRC,
reporting that the consumer had been receiving electricity bills representing
consumption of abnormal monthly electricity units ranging from 614 units during
the period of April 2017 to July, 2017 and 6014 units in the month of August,
2017. The consumer submitted that all these facts were being brought to the
notice of the Baner Section Office of the Utility time and again, but in vain.
Consequently, on 26.09.2018 the aggrieved Consumer received the bill for
Rs.2,64,190/- . Shaken by the bill amount, when the Consumer approached the
Licensee‟s concerned office with a complaint against the exorbitant bill amount
together with faulty nature of the meter, the consumer was advised by the Baner
Section Office of the Licensee to pay Rs.15,000/-, as against the bill for
Rs.2,64,910/- together with replacement of the faulty meter. The Consumer
submitted that there are only three (3) members in their family staying in the flat at
Veerbhadra Nagar, Baner and the old meter No. 06376679 was replaced with
New meter No.015392020 on 26.09.2018. These facts are also evident from the
Verification Report dt. 13.12.2018 placed on record which also states under
“Remarks” that the old faulty meter of the consumer was replaced with the new
one on 26.09.2018. Further, the „Meter Lab Testing Report‟ dt. 02.10.2018 also
states that the meter in question recorded abnormal consumption and creeping
meter was faulty. The consumer further brought to the notice of the Forum that
despite the old meter was replaced on 26.09.2018 but the consumer continued to
receive the bills with old meter number on it as against the replaced meter
number.

2
 06/2019

2. The consumer also further brought to the notice of the Forum that she
received provision bill for Rs. 8,48,540/- which was a result of faulty meter. On
approaching the Licensee‟s Baner Office, she was issued a fresh Provisional Bill
for 67,000/- admittedly for the high consumption of electricity recorded by the
faulty meter. The earlier provisional bill for Rs.8,47,050/- was replaced with the
new provisional bill for 67,000/- replacement of the old meter with the new one
together with Meter Testing Report supporting it. The consumer had observed the
reading on the replaced meter from 26.09.2018 to 31.12.2018 which comes to
aggregate of 2,128 units for the period under consideration – i.e. 97 units/day.
After perusal of another „Verification Report‟ dt. 13.12.2018, it was observed that
the trend of consumption of the new meter was 30 units/day as against the
consumption recorded by the earlier faulty meter which had been 97 units/day.
There is another (third) „Verification Report‟ dt. 19.03.2019 which clearly mentions
that there was no theft and the meter was in okay working conditions record.

The load pattern was observed of the new meter installed to the consumer
alongwith series meter and it is concluded that the meter is “OK”. In this report, it
is noticed that the actual connected load was 28 KW whereas its sanction load is
only 12 KW. The consumer also received a bill for Rs.2,64,190/- on 26.09.2018
against which the Licensee asked the consumer to pay Rs.15,000/- only.
According to the consumer the old meter was replaced on the same day – i.e.
26.09.2018 but replaced meter was picked up by the employee from the heap of
old meters lying in front of the office since new meters were reportedly not
available at the material time, with the assurance to the consumer that as and
when the new meter would be available it would be replaced again. Provisional
bill of Rs.6700/- was issued to the consumer against the bill Rs.8,47,050/- and
that time consumer was in arrears due to not resolving the issues. It was brought
to the notice by the consumer that since Nov.2016 the flat was occupied by only
four members and according to the consumer the old meter was showing
average consumption unit of 500 / month as against the the new / replaced meter
which was showing the consumption of 900 units per month. The average
consumption of 900 units / month calculated by the Baner Section office of the
Licensee was not agreed by consumer. In the ultimate result, the Consumer
contested and declined to take into account abnormal variations in the reading

3
 06/2019

and approached the IGRC with the prayer for refund of the excess bill amount
collected from her be adjusted in the ensuing bills to be issued to her so as to
remedy her grievance and reconcile the position obtaining in this regard for
considerable long period by then.

3. Following the complaint, IGRC registered the case T-30 of 2018 on

18.1.2019. An opportunity of personal hearing was given to the consumer and the
her representative as also the representatives of Utility on 23.01.2019. After
considering the grievance, together with documents placed on record, the IGRC
observed that –

“- The bills issued to the consumer for the period of nine (9) months –
i,e, from November, 2016 were normal,
- In August, 2017, the meter spurted to very high 6014 units.
- Meter was faulty since July, 2018 to September, 2018.
- Faulty meter is replaced on 26.09.2018.
- As per new meter, monthly consumption trend is 823 units. Considered
reading as on 26.09.2018 amd readomg as pm 29.11.2018 and
applicant’s bill rectified accordingly and provisional bill is issued to
consumer by Hand. But it is observed that seasonal consumption is not
considered as bill is rectified for period July 18 to Sept. 18 which are
monsoon season and monthly consumption trend of 823 units has
included month of Oct. 2018 and some days of Nov. 18.”

After recording the above observation, the IGRC has passed the following order
on 23.01.2019 -

“Applicant’s old meter was faulty since July, 2018 to Sept. 2018 and faulty
meter is replaced dtd. 26.09.2018. New meter monthly consumption trend
can be considered, but assessed consumption for faulty period from July,
2018 to Sept. 2018 should be considered by taking into account seasonal
consumption also and accordingly bill should be revised and issued to
consumer.”

4. Since the order of the IGRC was not in tune with her contention and/or her
submission before the IGRC, the consumer got aggrieved by the said order and,
therefore, filed the present appeal before the Forum. The Consumer
Representative, who happened to be the father of the consumer had also
additional grievance against the Licence that despite he being the senior citizen

4
 06/2019

running the age of seventy three (73) years, and despite having visited the Office
of the Licensee frequently – more than on 2/3 occasions, his grievance had not
been appropriately understood and realized and therefore was not resolved
properly. The Consumer also provided the details of variations in the
consumption pattern of electricity from Nov.2016 till the dispute was reported on
26.11.2018 and urged for refund of the excess recovery from her together with
interest on it and revision of the bill according the actual consumption as per
record. After filing this Appeal on 01.03.2019 it was registered with the CGRF
with distinctive number being the Case No. 06/2019. A notice was issued to the
Respondent Utility for filing its reply to the notice on or before 15.03.2019 which
was received on 26.03.2019 with the delay of eleven (11) days., with copy of the
reply having been endorsed to the Appellant. Accordingly, notice for final disposal
of the Appeal was served on the Appellant and the Respondents vide Notice No.
70 of 27.03.2019.

5. In its submission, the Respondent Utility provided the details of consumer

No. connecting load, details of old meter and new / replaced meter, Bill revision
Reports (B-80) dt. 26th March, 2019, and the Meter Testing Report and the load
verification report. According to the Utility old meter of the consumer bearing No.
6376679 was replaced on 26.9.2018 with the new meter No,.15392020 was
replaced and the faulty period was workout from June-2018 to Sept.2018. Old
meter trend during the period of six months – i.e. from July - 2018 to June-2018
worked out to 972 units per month and consumption trend for the period from
Sept. 2017 to June-2018 being 879 units / month. On the same lines, the
seasonal consumption pattern (summer) for the period from April-2017 to August
2017 worked out to 1202 units/month. Further seasonal trend for the period from
July, 2018 period Sept.2018 was also verified / assessed which worked out to l
1022 units/month. According to utility as per the testing report dated 02.10.2018
the meter was found faulty, and the consumption recorded on new meter was
found at 823 units per month in October and November 2018. Difference of
reading / consumption during the period from 26.09.2018 to 29.11.2018 too
worked out to net consumption / difference of Rs,1,645 units leading to average
consumption at 823 units/month. The Respondent Utility submitted that the
verification and new meter consumption trend was considered after taking into

5
 06/2019

consideration the connecting load, which was 28 KW as per actual verification

report which includes various electrical appliance in use by the consumer.
However, actual consumption of the consumer was found to be in excess to the
connecting load of 28 KW i.e. more than twice the sanction load and new meter
consumption trend as per his actual connected load verified by Respondent Utility
in the verification report dated 19.03.2019. The difference of old & new meter
trend comes to 581 units for the period Oct.2018 to Feb.2018 units per month was
showing less due to cold season. However the observations of new meter
consumption and the consumer consumption trend after installation of new meter
falls to 823 units for the faulty period status July 2018 to Sept.2018 which was
corrected as per the meter trend and the consumer was informed accordingly. In
view of this, the Licensee submitted that there was no need for revision of the
bill and the consumer complaint is a result of misunderstanding / wrong
interpretation of the status of the meter as „faulty‟ since impact arising out of the
status of „faulty meter‟ had already been rectified and corrected through the
mechanism of „B-80‟ on 13.12.2018 and the credit of Rs.4,73,153/- passed on to
the consumer and bill is revised for July - 2018 to Sept.-2018. The Licensee,
therefore, submitted that in view of what has been stated by it, the consumer
complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6. I have perused the relevant documents on record and have also heard
rival contentions and following points have arisen for my consideration to which I
have recorded my findings together with reasons therefor as given below:

a) Whether the consumer received exorbitant bills for the disputed faulty
period from July-2018 to Sept.2018?

b) Whether the consumer is entitled for refund excess recovery from her, if
any?

c) What the Order?

Reasoning :-

7. The Respondent Utility filed verification report dtd.29.11.2018, meter

testing report dated 12.3.2019, 19.3.2019 and dated 02.04.2019. I have given an
opportunity to the consumer and his representative, as also the representatives

6
 06/2019

of the Utility. Admittedly, it is observed from the reply of the Utility together with
the corresponding Meter Testing Reports that the meter was faulty because of
which the faulty meter was replaced with the new meter on 26.9.2018. I have
gone through the copy of CPL and the variations in the high and less recording of
the consumption of the electricity units during the period from 2016 to Sept.2018.
It appears that the Respondent Utility had previously not assessed the actual
consumption pattern of the consumer and had also not recorded correct / actual
unit consumption leading to the situation where the aggrieved consumer was not
billed properly. The consumer was being issued electricity bills almost on an
average consumption basis which issued in the previous months was not in tune
with the actual consumption. The Respondent Utility was, therefore, directed by
the Forum to once again verify the connecting load of the Consumer vis-a-vis of
actual consumption as compared with the connecting load and it was verified.
During the course of re-verification, it was observed that though the sanctioned of
the consumer was 12 KW, the actual consumption had exceeded the same to
the extent of 28 KW on an average. The consumption pattern of the consumer
for the relevant period was also assessed by various methods simultaneously i.e.
1) As per connected load, 2) As per MERC Regulations- 2005 at Clause
No.15.4.1 i.e. Billing in the event of defective meter. It was noticed that while the
Utility had earlier recorded consumption of the consumer up to 500 units / month
as against the actual consumption which happened to be up to 900 units/month
thereby billing slab applicable to the consumer being 500 units to 1000 units.
Examined on this backdrop, it is certain to mention that actual consumption, as
also the billing pattern of the consumer happened to be certainly on higher side
and the consumer was, accordingly, obliged to / required to pay electricity bills for
the relevant periods for the rates applicable to higher slab/s as against for which
the consumer had been issued the bills during the period under dispute and which
bills had also been contested by the consumer for the reasons being excessive.

8. It is necessary to mention here that our Technical Member on the Forum

had also examined, calculated and verified the actual consumption of the
consumer as per connecting load becomes 1216 units per month whereas the
actual load used by the consumer happened to be 28 KW as against the
sanctioned load of 12.00KW and placed its report on record. Also the Technical

7
 06/2019

Member observed that the average consumption of the consumer becomes to

1232 units per month for the healthy period as per MERC Regulations – 2005 at
Clause No. 15.4.1 in the” BILLING IN THE EVENT OF DEFECTIVE METER”.
From these two methods it is seen that the consumption pattern of the consumer
becomes as 1216 to 1232 units per month is correct and proper. In overall
observation, therefore, the disputed period as observed by the IGRC, and also by
CGRF is for three (3) months only, i.e. from July, 2018 to Sept.2018 before the
faulty meter was replaced with the new meter on 26.09.2018. In view the
circumstances before the Forum, the present case of the consumer attracts of the
provisions of Regulation No. 15.4.1 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Electric Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations,
2005, which read as under:

“15 Billing

15.4 Billing in the event of Defective Meters –

15.4.1 Subject to the provisions of Part XII and Part XIV of the Act,
in case of defective meter, the amount of the consumer’s bill shall be
adjusted, for a maximum period of three months prior to the month in which
the dispute has arisen, in accordance with the result of the test taken,
subject to furnishing the test report of the meter along with the assessed
bill.

Provided that in case of broken or damaged meter seal, the meter shall be
tested for defectiveness or tampering. In case of defective meter, the
assessment shall be carried out as per Clause 15.4.1 above, and in case of
tampering as per Section 126 or Section 135 of the Act, depending on the
circumstances of each case.

Provided further that, in case the meter has stopped recording, the
consumer shall be billed for the period for which the meter has stopped
recording, up to a maximum period of three months, based on the average
metered consumption for twelve months immediately preceding the three
months prior to the month in which the billing is contemplated. “

9. On careful examination of the facts associated with the case, it is to be

noticed that the present case of the consumer is not under Section 126 and/or

8
 06/2019

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, but a plain case of incorrect recording of the
consumption due to defective meter. Under the given circumstances, therefore,
the liability of the consumer will obviously get restricted to average consumption
for the period of three (3) months prior to the period of dispute, but after
assessment of the bills of the consumer afresh following meter testing reports on
record together with replacement of the defective meter on 26.09.2018. In view
of the provisions as contained in Regulation No. 15.4.1 referred to hereinbefore,
the Utility is, therefore, required to assess afresh the actual consumption of the
consumer in view of the said clause, for the period of twelve (12) months
immediately period three (3) months prior to the month for which billing is
contemplated / is considered. The Respondent Utility had submitted that it has
already worked on the issue through “Bill Revision Report – B80” in the month of
Dec. 2018 – i.e. on 13.12.2018 and the admissible benefits have already passed
on to the consumer after calculation of consumption of the units afresh and the
necessary Credit of Rs.4,73,153/- ( Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Three Thousand
One Hundred Fifty Three Only) passed on to the consumer on 13.12.2018 and
necessary effect for the same would appear in the next bill of the consumer as per
the billing cycle. It is, therefore, observed that no monetary benefits are
required to be passed on to the consumer in the process. The consumer is,
however, justified in making the complaint against faulty meter status since July
2018 to Sept.2018, i.e. for the period of three (3) months leading to bills being
issued to the consumer randomly as also exorbitantly, which now stands revised.
The Utility is directed to revise the energy bill of the consumer for the period of
three months i.e. July‟2018 to Sept.‟2018 in terms of provision content in
Regulation 15.4.1 of the MERC Regulation- 2005 and recover or refund the
admissible charges from / to the consumer. In view of the Regulation 15.4.1, as
referred to hereinbefore, the admissible benefits should be given to the consumer
and actual monetary bill revised accordingly. Under the circumstances,
therefore, I have come to the conclusion to allow the present complaint partly.
The consumer is also entitled to receive token compensation for the delay in
resolving the dispute / grievance for of considerably long time - Nov.2018 to Dec.-
2018. The Respondent Utility is, therefore, directed to pay token compensation
of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be adjusted in the in next billing

9
 06/2019

cycle of the consumer. Hence I am inclined to allow the consumer complaint

partly and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER
1. Consumer Complaint No Case No.06 of 2019 is partly allowed.
2. The Respondent Utility has to assess the monthly consumption pattern as
per actual connecting load and on the basis of provisions of Regulation
No. 15.4.1, as referred to hereinabove, assess consumption of the units as
mentioned above and revise the bill accordingly and recover or refund the
admissible charges from / to the consumer.
3. The Respondent Utility has to correct the connected load on the energy bill
as per verification report mentioned as 28 KW and make necessary
changes as per MSEDCL‟s Rules and Regulations.
4. However the Respondent Utility shall re-verify the bill revision report and
adjust cost of Rs.1000/- in next billing cycle.

I agree / Disagree I agree / Disagree

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

A.P.Joshi B.S.Savant A.Bhavthankar
Member Member/Secretary Chairperson
CGRF:PZ: PUNE CGRF:PZ:PUNE CGRF-:PZ:PUNE

Note :- The consumer if not satisfied may file representation against

this order before the Hon.‟ ble Ombudsman within 60 days from the
date of this order at the following address.
Office of the Ombudsman,
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission,
606/608, Keshav Bldg.Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-51.

f/090519

10