Consumer's liability limited in case of faulty metres

Consumer's liability limited in case of faulty metres
D S MEHTA

The delay in replacement of faulty electric meters by DVB in Delhi or electricity suppliers in other parts of the country is a common phenomenon. This puts the consumer to considerable difficulty, as he has to pay penal charges.

Some important issues are involved. Is a person using electricity a consumer under CPA? Does CPA also applies to a person who uses electricity for commercial purpose? Is the consumer entitled to interest if the excess amount paid by him is not refunded in reasonable time?

First the faulty meters. Who is responsible for replacement of faulty metres, the supplier or the user? Is it mandatory for the consumer to inform the suppler about faulty meter when the supplier himself has indicated ‘faulty meter’ in the bill? What a consumer to do if he has repeatedly informed the supplier personally and in writing about faulty meter and still no action has been taken? What happens if the user has also contacted several times phone numbers given by DVB in ads for instant replacement of faulty meter and there is no response? For what duration a consumer is liable to pay penal or average charges after the new meter is installed and on what basis, the average consumption before the meter became faulty or on the basis of readings in new meter.

These questions have been decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in the case (Appeal no. 687 of 2000, Delhi Vidyut Board vs. Shri Mukesh Kumar 2000 CTJ 503 (CP)(SCDRC). Rejecting the appeal of DVB filed under Section 15 of CPA, the Commission upheld the order of District Forum holding DVB guilty of deficiency in service and directing it to replace the defective meter and also to withdraw the misuse charges beyond six months and late payment surcharge.

The decision of the State Commission clarifies the issues. It held that DVB, being the licensee is duty bound to maintain and check the meters. Also, the bill cannot be raised in case of defective meter beyond six months. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced for the benefit of all those who are subject to any harassment on account of delay in non-replacement of faulty meters.

“We have gone through the records and heard the parties. It is well settled law vide the famous case titled H.D. Shourie vs. MCD (DESU) that as per Sections 26 (6) the maximum period for which a bill could be raised in case of defective meter was six months and no more. The plea that the consumer being custodian in respect of the meter and other electrical installations should approach the DVB for its replacement does not bear any fruit because DVB being the licensee is duty bound to maintain and check the meter. If there is default committed in this behalf by the licensee then it is obvious that consumer should not be penalized by raising huge bills. Rather by mentioning meter defective in the bills based on the meter reading, the DVB should suo motu replace the defective meter on own interest for the consumer knowing that he cannot be charged for more than six months may consume a higher quantity of electricity thus causing loss to the DVB itself. Under these circumstances DVB is clearly guilty for thedeficiency in service and as such liable to compensate the consumer for the harassment and agony caused to him. Accordingly, we direct the respondent DVB to replace the defective meter and withdraw the misuse charges and charge on average basis for beyond six months and also withdraw the late payment surcharge ad pay Rs 3000/- as compensation and Rs 500/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.”Related to this is the refund of excess amount paid by the consumer to DVB in respect of its bill. Delhi State Consumer Commission in the case of NK Rohatgi vs. General Manager DESU has ruled that consumer is entitled to interest on the amount if there is delay in refund by the electricity supplier.

The question whether deficiency n service by electricity supplier is covered under CPA or not is settled by the National Consumer Commission, in the case Manju Singh Chauhan vs MP Electricity Board. The Commission has held that corporate bodies like the State Electricity Boards render service under section 2(1)(o) of the CPA and that the sale of electricity on a continuous basis over a period of time against payment therefore is hiring of service under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA. In view of this decision the consumer courts have full jurisdiction in such cases.

A person using electricity for commercial purpose is also a consumer under CPA. The Punjab State Commission in the case of Malhan Garments vs PSEB has ruled that since the supply of electricity under the CPA is ‘hiring of services’ and not purchase of goods such a person is consumer and is entitled to get redress from consumer courts.

The author is a consumer activist and freelance writer