JUDGMENT 1. A representation against the decision of the Consumers' Grievance Redressal Forum, Garhwal Zone was filed in this office on 06.09.2004 and accordingly it has been registered as Representation No. 2/2004 dated 13.09.2004. It was however noted that the Complainant had not enclosed a copy of the decision of the Learned Forum. 2. Copies of the Representation were issued to the Respondents (Licensee) for filing their reply and the hearing was scheduled for 6.10.2004. The Complainant Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta was informed that his Representation did not contain a copy of decision of the Learned Forum. 3. On 6.10.2004 representatives of both parties presented themselves. The Complainant Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta admitted that he was not the original consumer of the Licensee's connection No. 5104/16612 which was in the name of Sri Ashok Kumar of Shri Neelkanth Hosieries. The Complainant Sri U.C. Gupta produced an authorization from his wife Smt. Pl!shpa Gupta claiming sole proprietorship of M/S Neelkanth Hosieries, Dhalwala, Rishikesh. She has declared that the partnership with Sri Ashok Kumar has been dissolved since 31.8.1995, but that the connection 5104/16612 is still continuing in the name of Sri Ashok Kumar. The Complainant also informed that the Learned Forum had rejected his complaint for waiving off the surcharge by passing "verbal orders". 4. The Licensee was represented on 6.10.04 by Sri Arjun Pratap Singh, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) who submitted some information in reply to the representation. Further date was fixed on 13.10.04 for the Complainant to submit some relevant information. 5. On 13.10.04 the Complainant was absent on grounds of illness and requested for extension of the date. The Licensee (Respondent) was represented by Sri Arjun Pratap Singh, A.E.(R). 6. On the next date of hearing on 3.11.04 the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rishikesh Sri Jag Mohan Singh Rauthan was present and a copy of the decision that had been passed by the Forum was submitted by him. Complainant Sri U.C. Gupta was also present. He also admitted that he had still not paid the amount regarding which he had admitted previously that there was no dispute with the Licensee. The Licensee informed that the Complainant's connection had been disconnected on 29.10.04. 7. Further on 3.11.2004 the Complainant filed his Rejoinder to the reply of the Respondents given on 6.10.2004 along with an additional rejoinder. 8. The Licensee informed that the Complainant's connection had been disconnected on 29.10.04. 7. Further on 3.11.2004 the Complainant filed his Rejoinder to the reply of the Respondents given on 6.10.2004 along with an additional rejoinder. 8. The Licensee were given time to file, their replies to these on 17.11.04. 9. On 17.11.04 the Complainant sent a fax that he could not come due to unavoidable circumstances. The Licensee was represented by Sri Arjun Pratap Singh, A.E. (R), who submitted the reply to the Rejoinder of the Complainant but not to the additional rejoinder. Sri Singh also informed that the Complainant had paid Rs.14, 000.00 after which his connection had been reconnected. The Licensee was asked whether their action on this matter from the beginning till the present moment were as per rules or not. 10. The next date was fixed for 1.12.2004 for submission of replies by the Licensee. 11. On 1.12.04 the Complainant Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta was again not present. The Licensee was represented by Sri Arjun Pratap Singh who filed the replies. Accordingly 15.12.04 was fixed for final orders. 12. The Complainant has filed his Representation on grounds which are not materially different from those filed earlier in his complaint before the Learned Forum. 13. Be that as it may the Representation has been examined and the full facts and circumstances are as under : 1. Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta has filed this representation although the connection exists in the name of Sri Ashok Kumar, Licensee's Connection No. RK6/ 5104/016612. 2. In its Decision, the Forum had noted that the Complainant had to pay the late payment surcharge, as he had failed to abide by the instructions of the Licensee in the system of "Spot Billing", which were widely circulated according to which the consumer had to take his own meter readings, get the bills issued from the "Spot Billing Centre" and make the timely payments immediately thereafter. It was observed by the Forum that the Complainant did not make the timely payments although he did get a few bills issued - that being the case the late payment surcharge was not waived off. 3. The facts brought out in this Representation reveal that the Complainant had accumulated unpaid bills even as early as 28.11. 99. He had made only a part payment of Rs. 3. The facts brought out in this Representation reveal that the Complainant had accumulated unpaid bills even as early as 28.11. 99. He had made only a part payment of Rs. 12,000.00 vide Receipt No. 753144/41 dated 27.11.99 and after clearing this amount his total outstanding at the meter reading 2143 was still Rs. 14,873.00 on 28.11. 99. Thus this fact stands out that a relatively huge arrear of Rs. 14,873.00 stood out against him starting December 1999. 4. The Complainant was required to clear this balance immediately but he did not do so, as the sub-• sequent facts reveal. 5. From 12/99 the billing of this consumer was transferred to Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Rural), Dehradun. The Licensee took around 8-9 months to issue its next bill. During this period the Complainant-carried his arrear of Rs. 14,873.00 plus he had also accumulated charges on account of consumption of this period. 6. On 28.7.2000 Complainant at his own request got his reading verified by the Junior Engineer but he did not get the correct bill issued up to 7/2000 and just paid an amount of Rs. 12,000.00 towards his old arrears up to 12/99. 7. The Licensee has admitted that the computer issues N.R. (Meter Not Read) bills, which are provisional subject to adjustment when the correct reading is fed. However the Complainant has wrongly sought an adjustment of Rs. 12,000.00 which he lad paid much earlier on 27.1" .99 as claimed on 11.9.2000 and 27.11.2000 whereas this amount had already been adjusted in the arrears up to 28.11. 99. So these applications can be said to be making wrong assertions of payments in the current accumulation of arrears. 8. In the month of 12/2000 the provisional bill was duly corrected on the basis of actual reading, and given to the Complainant for payment for the amount of Rs. 28,196.00 against which the consumer paid only Rs. 15,000.00 in the month of 2/ .2001 as part payment. 9; Now the billing w.e.f. January 2001 was converted to the "Spot Billing System" where the reading was to be produced every month by the consumer himself to get the bill issued and he had to deposit the payment on the spot. The onus for clearing the payment due was fully on the consumer. 10. 9; Now the billing w.e.f. January 2001 was converted to the "Spot Billing System" where the reading was to be produced every month by the consumer himself to get the bill issued and he had to deposit the payment on the spot. The onus for clearing the payment due was fully on the consumer. 10. This procedure was not followed by the Complainant and it can be reasonably concluded that he did so as he appeared to be unwilling to clear his dues. 11. In the month of April 2001 the bill corresponding to the reading was got prepared by the Complainant. The adjustment of N.A./N.R. was given in the bill 1 but the arrears shown in the bill were not correct. Since the consumer was not willing to pay the dues the bill was not got corrected. 12. No reading was produced by the consumer from 5/01to 12/01 for getting the bill issued from the Spot Billing Centre for a period of eight months. 13. In the month of January 2002 the bill based on the reading was got prepared by the Complainant but procedure for getting the bill corrected was not adopted by the consumer as he continued to appear unwilling to pay the dues. 14. This manner of evading payment of bills has been repeated again after a gap of 8 months in the month of 9/2002, and again after a gap of 10 months the same was repeated in the month of 8/ 1 2003, and still again after a gap of 4 months in 1/2004 but the Complainant did not deposit any dues. 15. On 28.1.04 the Complainant's 1 connection was disconnected for the first time and on 30.1.2004 the Complainant deposited the part payment of Rs. 25,000.00 and the connection was reconnected. 16. Further in the first week of 3/ 2004 the Complainant was asked to get the bill corrected and to deposit the dues: But the Complainant did not turn up. This resulted in the connection' being disconnected again on 10.3.2004. 17. An application dated 15.3.2004 was then given by the son of the Complainant Sri Gaurav Gupta for correction of the bill and on the same day the bill was corrected and given to the Complainant vide letter No. 756 dated 15.3.2004 with the condition that the amount will be paid in installments as under : (i) First Installment Rs. 17. An application dated 15.3.2004 was then given by the son of the Complainant Sri Gaurav Gupta for correction of the bill and on the same day the bill was corrected and given to the Complainant vide letter No. 756 dated 15.3.2004 with the condition that the amount will be paid in installments as under : (i) First Installment Rs. 30,000.00 to be paid in 3/ 2004. (ii) Second installment Rs. 25,000.00 Plus Current bill to be paid in 4/2004. (iii) Third installment Rs. 34,157.00 Plus Current bill to be paid in 5/2004. The first installment was deposited on the due date but the 2nd on 15.5.2004 instead of in the month of 4/2004. 18. The Spot Billing System has been discontinued w.e.f. April 2004. The proper bill could not be issued further due to change of system. 19. Accordingly in the month of 10/ 2004 for a reading up to 9/2004 a bill was got worked out in the office of the Executive Engineer but instead of getting the same approved by the Executive Engineer these papers were wrongly retained by the Complainant himself and the details of corrections were intimated through his application dated 2.11.2094 to the Executive Engineer with the request that the amount of the bill, Rs. 14,074.00, that is excluding the amount of surcharge which figure arrived at was Rs. 33,180.00, may be allowed to be deposited in 3 installments. This was rightly not considered appropriate by the Executive Engineer and the connection was disconnected for non payment of dues on 29.10.2004. The representative of the Licensee. Sri Arjun Pratap Singh intimated that after getting Rs. 14,000.00 deposited from the Complainant the connection had been reconnected on 6.11.2004. 20. It stands out that the Complainant could not clear any bill in full after correction, which occurred as follows : (i) In 12/1999 Rs. 14,873.00 (ii) In 12/2000 Rs. 28,196.00 (iii) In 04/2004 Rs. 89,156.70 (iv) In 10/2004 Rs. 47,254.00 21. As facts stand out the Complainant has not so far cleared the dues fully since 12/99. In such a situation it is the liability of the Complainant that when ever he was in a position to deposit the dues he was expected to approach the office to get the bill corrected viz-a-viz current meter reading plus arrears and clear the same by depositing the dues in full. In such a situation it is the liability of the Complainant that when ever he was in a position to deposit the dues he was expected to approach the office to get the bill corrected viz-a-viz current meter reading plus arrears and clear the same by depositing the dues in full. But the Complainant has consistently failed to clear the dues fully since 12/99' and as such his Representation for getting the surcharge waived off is totally without merit. 22. For around three years since February 2001 till January 2004 the Complainant did not make any payment, which makes him a defaulter under the Spot Billing System. This also exposes' the Licensee's own negligence regarding their primary duty to collect revenues, and if payment was not forthcoming to disconnect the supplies. However this cannot absolve the Complainant of his responsibility, which he has been evading in making timely payment for power availed by him. AWARD 14. Having diligently and carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of the Complainant's Representation against the Decision of the Learned Consumers' Grievance Redressal Forum, Garhwal Zone, rejecting his complaint for waiver of the surcharge over delayed payments and non-payments over considerable period of time, and after giving due hearings to the Complainant as also the representative of the Licensee, I come to the conclusion that the Licensee is legally bound by the relevant provisions of the tariff to charge the late payment surcharge, as the Complainant failed to abide by the instructions of "Spot Billing System" that were widely circulated. Accordingly the Complainant's Representation seeking waiver of the late payment surcharge is hereby rejected. 15. The Complainant is directed to clear all his outstanding dues including the late payment surcharge that have 21 accrued against the actual consumption & failing which the Licensee may take appropriate action under rules for re- recovery of the dues. 16. The Complainant is also directed to keep his premises open for c taking of meter readings and the attention of the Licensee is specifically drawn towards the powers conferred on \ it under Section 163 (1), (2) & (3) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 to enable it to get the premises opened for such duties. 17. The Complainant has admitted that he is carrying on business under the name of a person who is no longer associated with it. 17. The Complainant has admitted that he is carrying on business under the name of a person who is no longer associated with it. The Licensee needs to carry out the procedure prescribed by it for change of tenancy and mutation of name without further delay. 18. It also stands out and is admitted by both sides that the Licensee is not charging the correct Tariff RTS-7 on this Industrial Consumer, which it must do after completing the prescribed procedure. 19. The Licensee has been negligent in discharging its duties in not disconnecting a defaulter whenever it was due, as has happened when the Complainant failed to deposit the undisputed dues as on after 28.11.99, after 12/2000 and during the course of 35 months in the Spot Billing period in all for nearly 4 years. Not disconnecting when required is also a violation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 Section 56(1) by the Licensee and is a culpable neglect of its duties. 20. The Licensee has also not monitored the recovery of the additional Security Amount as shown in this case under the provisions of the Act 2003 Section 47 Sub Sections (1), (2) & (3), although it makes a token mention in the bills that additional security is due. 21. The Licensee's Management needs also to address, why it neglected certain safeguards that were part of the complete process of ensuring success of "Spot Billing System". One of these was of ensuring quarterly meter readings and comparison with consumers' payments according to the letter's own readings of the meters.