Court waives man’s Rs 73,031 electricity bill, orders Rs 10,000 payout over ‘delayed demand’

Commission president Girish Mishra and member Sanjeev Kumar were hearing a complaint filed by a Motihari resident, one Rajiv Kumar Dwivedi alias Pappu Dubey, on March 17, 2025, against officials of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (NBPDCL).

“The complainant is a lawful consumer and the action of raising such a demand after nearly three years amounts to a deficiency in service,” the commission said on June 11, holding the electricity department responsible for the dispute.

The commission directed that the consumer’s electricity connection should not be disconnected based on the disputed dues. (Image generated using AI)

Commission cancels bill, bars recovery

Allowing the complaint, the commission quashed the January 2025 bill and all subsequent bills based on it.

The commission directed NBPDCL to undertake fresh billing based on actual electricity consumed after the installation of the smart meter. It also prohibited the department from recovering any amount towards the disputed arrears.

If any excess amount has already been collected from the consumer, the same must be refunded, it said.

The commission further directed that the consumer’s electricity connection should not be disconnected based on the disputed dues.

Rs 10,000 compensation for mental agony

Besides granting substantive relief, the commission ordered the electricity department to pay Rs 10,000 towards mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses suffered by the complainant.

The utility has been directed to comply with the order within one month, failing which the consumer would be entitled to pursue execution proceedings in accordance with the law.

Billing dispute

According to the complaint, Dwivedi obtained a domestic electricity connection from NBPDCL on January 30, 2017.

For years, he regularly paid electricity bills issued by the department. He paid a bill of Rs 2,509 on May 11, 2022, and another bill of Rs 1,370 on July 14, 2022.

Story continues below this ad

On July 15, 2022, officials installed a prepaid smart meter at his residence and removed the old postpaid meter.

The consumer claimed that the smart meter started with a zero reading and that the department informed him that only 121 units were pending under the previous meter.

He continued to recharge the prepaid smart meter and consume electricity as required. According to him, at no point was he informed about any substantial outstanding dues.

However, in February 2025, he received a bill for January 2025 showing arrears of Rs 73,031. The demand came as a shock because it was raised nearly three years after the smart meter had been installed.

Story continues below this ad

He approached the consumer commission alleging arbitrary billing, harassment, and deficiency in service.

Electricity department cites technical problems

Defending the demand, NBPDCL argued that the complainant was a domestic three-phase consumer with a sanctioned load of five kilowatts and that the smart meter had been installed on July 15, 2022.

The department claimed that due to outages and modem communication issues, actual billing could not be generated immediately after installation. According to the utility, the first comprehensive billing based on smart meter data was carried out on January 1, 2025.

Officials submitted that the bill covered 912 billing days during which the consumer allegedly used 18,069 units of electricity.

Story continues below this ad

Including 121 units from the previous meter, the total bill was calculated at Rs 1,20,440. After adjusting payments worth Rs 52,596 and a rebate of Rs 1,570, the utility claimed that Rs 67,031 remained payable.

The electricity department maintained that there was no deficiency in service and that the bill was generated on the basis of actual consumption.

Commission questions three-year delay

After reviewing documentary evidence, electricity bills, payment records, and submissions from both sides, the commission found several shortcomings in the utility’s case.

The forum noted that the complainant had regularly paid electricity charges before and after the installation of the smart meter. It also observed that the smart meter began with a zero reading and that the consumer continued recharging it while using electricity.

Story continues below this ad

The commission found it significant that the electricity department failed to explain why proper billing was not carried out for nearly three years despite the smart meter being operational.

It further noted that the January 2025 bill itself reflected average monthly consumption figures, suggesting that the department was receiving consumption data and could have generated regular bills.

Instead, a substantial demand was raised after a prolonged delay.

According to the commission, consumers are entitled to receive timely bills so they can manage payments according to their electricity usage.

Story continues below this ad

Smart meter system under scrutiny

The commission also examined the nature of prepaid smart meters while assessing the dispute.

It said that under a prepaid system, electricity supply is ordinarily linked to available balance, making it difficult to accept the utility’s explanation that such a large unpaid amount accumulated unnoticed over a long period without proper billing or communication.

The forum noted that when a consumer is paying according to the meter and regularly recharging the account, the burden lies on the utility to explain any extraordinary arrears raised years later.

Finding the explanation inadequate, the commission concluded that the disputed demand was arbitrary, contrary to consumer rights, and amounted to a deficiency in service.

Story continues below this ad

Why verdict matters

The ruling is likely to resonate with thousands of electricity consumers who have migrated to smart meter systems in recent years.

As power distribution companies increasingly rely on digital metering technology, the judgment underscores that consumers cannot be saddled with unexplained arrears years after installation without timely billing, transparency, and adequate justification.

The decision also reinforces a basic consumer protection principle: utility providers must issue regular and accurate bills, and any failure to do so cannot be used later to burden consumers with massive retrospective demands.