“The respondent (Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited) has failed to adduce any document which proves that the electricity connection in question was disconnected by the respondent on account of the appellant having dishonestly abstracted electricity,” the commission said on July 27.

The dispute stems from two electricity bills issued in March and September 2011, each carrying Rs 5,000 under the head “other charges”. Dabas claimed the amounts were added without any explanation or prior notice and were paid only to avoid disconnection of his electricity supply. He also alleged that the company unjustifiably increased his sanctioned load from 1 KW to 7 KW, resulting in higher bills.

Consumer’s case

According to Dabas, he had regularly paid his electricity bills, and there were no outstanding dues against his connection. He alleged that despite repeatedly approaching Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited and even serving a legal notice, the company neither explained the basis of the disputed charges nor withdrew them.

He sought a refund of Rs 10,000 collected through the two power bills, reduction of the sanctioned load, compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses, along with other consequential reliefs.

Company’s defence

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited opposed the complaint, contending that the additional charges had been imposed in accordance with Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the company, the consumer’s electricity supply was disconnected twice due to outstanding dues and illegally restored on both occasions, attracting Rs 5,000 in restoration charges each time.

It also relied on a July 2010 inspection, claiming Dabas had been found involved in dishonest abstraction of electricity and had settled an assessment bill exceeding Rs 40,000. The company maintained that the sanctioned load was 7 KW.

What commission found

After examining the record, the state commission found that Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited had failed to place any document on record establishing that the electricity connection had actually been disconnected because of alleged dishonest abstraction of electricity.

The commission also observed that although the company claimed the two amounts of Rs 5,000 represented penalties, the bills merely reflected them as “other charges” and did not adequately indicate that they had been imposed on account of dishonest abstraction of electricity.

The bench further noted that if the electricity connection had indeed been disconnected, there appeared to be no reason why regular electricity bills for March and September 2011 would still have been issued in the consumer’s name.

In the circumstances of the case, the commission held that the disputed recovery could not be sustained merely on the company’s allegations in the absence of supporting documentary evidence.

Relief granted

Setting aside the district commission‘s order, the state commission directed Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited to refund Rs 10,000 collected as “other charges” with 6 per cent simple annual interest, rising to 9 per cent if the amount is not paid within the stipulated time.

It also awarded Rs 10,000 each towards compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The commission held that the disputed recovery could not be sustained as the company failed to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence.