In a recent development, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has sent back a case filed against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSED) to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) for further investigation. The case revolves around allegations of inflated electricity bills, resulting from what the complainant claims to be wrongful meter readings.
The NCDRC, while criticizing the SCDRC’s prior decision, pointed out that the State Commission had failed to adequately address the issue. It had merely confirmed the District Consumer Commission's order without delving into the core of the dispute — whether the recorded units were accurate. The NCDRC directed the SCDRC to reassess the allegations of incorrect billing and a defective meter to ensure a fair resolution.
The complainant, Shrikrishna Panditrao Danve, a resident of Osmanabad, has been entangled in this dispute since 2005, when he first received an abnormally high electricity bill. Despite using electricity for domestic purposes, his meter recorded extraordinarily high usage. In the billing cycle between December 2004 and January 2005, the meter allegedly showed 7,383 units of consumption. In subsequent months, the readings continued to be excessive, with 1,784 units recorded in February–March, 1,414 in April–May, and 1,007 in June–July 2005.
Danve argued that he had cleared all dues up until December 2004, and that the bill received in March 2005, amounting to Rs. 23,930, was erroneous. He claimed that the reading was based on a defective meter, which had since been replaced, and that the inflated units recorded during the disputed period should not have been included in his bill.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC) dismissed Danve’s plea but calculated his electricity consumption at an average of 400 units per month between October 2004 and April 2012. The District Commission also ruled that no interest or additional charges should be levied, and payments previously made would be adjusted.
Unhappy with the ruling, Danve contended that the District Commission’s calculation was flawed. He argued that the excessively high readings from October 2004 to July 2005 had been wrongfully included, inflating the overall average. If these months were excluded, he claimed, the average consumption would be significantly lower, and his complaint should be upheld in full.
The NCDRC, acknowledging the factual dispute regarding the method of calculating the average billing, declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Instead, it opted to send the case back to the SCDRC, stating that the State Commission, in its appellate capacity, was better suited to resolve the matter. The NCDRC noted that the order of the District Commission had already attained finality against the MSED under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the alleged error in billing calculation raised by the complainant warranted further investigation by the State Commission.
