ORDER (Per: C.C. Pant, Member): This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 202 of 2006. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and directed the opposite party, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (in short “UPCL”), to issue electricity bills pertaining to the period prior to the year 2006, when UPCL started sending bills to the complainant on the basis of actual meter unit, for the minimum charges after adjusting the bill amount already deposited by the complainant. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party to reconnect the electricity connection of the complainant within three days from the date of depositing the bill amount by the complainant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant – Smt. Prem Lata, now deceased, had taken an electricity connection No. 425/49289 on 10.02.1998 from the UPCL for her residence. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party – UPCL through its Executive Engineer, EDD, Mayapur, Haridwar, did not send any electricity bill since the date of connection, though her husband Sh. Shyam Lal has always been persuading the officials of the UPCL to issue the bills on the basis of actual meter reading. However, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that her electricity connection number is being shown as 428/49289 instead of 425/49289 and, thus, the bills were misplaced. She sent various letters to the UPCL on 25.03.2003, 24.09.2003, 05.05.2004, 28.09.2004 and 23.10.2004 in this regard, but the UPCL did not take any action. She also sent a registered notice to the UPCL on 13.12.2004 and again on 16.03.2005 through her counsel, but to no avail. The complainant has also stated that she has made a part payment of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 311/- vide receipt Nos. 36/365959 and 15/272873 respectively to the UPCL and she is ready to pay the balance amount as per the correct electricity bill based on actual meter reading and with correct electricity connection number. The complainant has alleged that inspite of her requests and her willingness to pay the amount of correct bills, the opposite party issued a electricity bill dated 10.06.2004 for Rs. 44,994/- again with incorrect electricity connection No. 428/49289 and without meter reading. The complainant has alleged that inspite of her requests and her willingness to pay the amount of correct bills, the opposite party issued a electricity bill dated 10.06.2004 for Rs. 44,994/- again with incorrect electricity connection No. 428/49289 and without meter reading. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 11.04.2005. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 30.01.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., EDD, Mayapur, Haridwar has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly emphasized on Regulation Nos. 19(iv) and 19(v) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. He submitted that if a bill is not received by the consumer within three weeks from the date on which last reading was taken, then under Regulation No. 19(iv) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, the consumer should take the meter reading himself / herself and get the bill prepared from the office of the UPCL. Similarly, if the bill is incorrect, then the consumer should get it corrected under Regulation No. 19(v) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. With regard to the error in Book No. 425, which has appeared as 428, the learned counsel argued that the Book number is not significant. The connection number 49289 is correctly printed and, therefore, the bill has no significant error. In support of his argument, the learned counsel pressed into service the following decisions:- (a) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Gurupada Majumder; 2011(1) CPR 114 (West Bengal State Commission) (b) This Commission’s decision dated 13.10.2008 in First Appeal No. 381 of 2007 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. M.K. Verma (Advocate) 5. The learned counsel also submitted that since the complainant did not pay the amount of Rs. 44,994/- against the bill dated 10.08.2004, her electricity connection was disconnected on 13.10.2004. Under Regulation No. 19(vi), the electricity connection can be restored on deposit of the amount of the bill and the consumer has to comply with the requisites of Regulation No. 8 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, which the complainant – respondent failed to do. 44,994/- against the bill dated 10.08.2004, her electricity connection was disconnected on 13.10.2004. Under Regulation No. 19(vi), the electricity connection can be restored on deposit of the amount of the bill and the consumer has to comply with the requisites of Regulation No. 8 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, which the complainant – respondent failed to do. The learned counsel also argued that the District Forum cannot give a sweeping direction for correction of all the bills since 1998 to 2006. He also submitted that the complainant has not stated as to when she had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 311/- and Rs. 100/-, which were allegedly not adjusted in the electricity bill. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent–complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. 7. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the cited decisions as referred above, may not help the appellant. Particularly, the decision dated 13.10.2008 of this Commission in First Appeal No. 381 of 2007 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. M.K. Verma (Advocate), is not relevant in the context of the instant case. In the instant case, the respondent has always expressed her willingness to deposit the bills’ amount, if the bills are correctly issued. The various letters sent by the respondent to the appellant, which she has mentioned in her consumer complaint, are available in District Forum’s record. The appellant has failed to explain as to why the connection number was not rectified and the electricity bills were not issued in accordance with the meter reading. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the book number is not significant. This reply of the appellant is misleading, because the billing system of the UPCL is computerized and in a computerized system, the consumer is identified with the code, which is allotted to him/her and the allotted code (or consumer number) must be unique. In the case of electricity consumers, it is the electricity connection number, which is used as the unique consumer number. For correct billing and accounting, it must be a unique number. In the instant case, the connection number 49289 along with the Book number or Area Code 425 makes a unique identification number of a consumer. In the case of electricity consumers, it is the electricity connection number, which is used as the unique consumer number. For correct billing and accounting, it must be a unique number. In the instant case, the connection number 49289 along with the Book number or Area Code 425 makes a unique identification number of a consumer. If the area code is changed to 428, the bill will pertain to some other consumer and bill’s amount will also be shown deposited in a different account. So, the respondent’s objection was genuine that her connection number be corrected. So far as the meter reading is concerned, the appellant has submitted the details of meter readings, units consumed, bill’s amount and total amount of the bill including arrears (Paper Nos. 27/3 and 27/4 of the District Forum’s record). A careful perusal of these details reveals that the amount due against the respondent has been shown in an arbitrary manner. For example, for the month of March, 2005 (or 3/05), the units consumed have been shown as 243, though the last meter reading and the current meter reading are 9098 and “NA” and the bill amount is Rs. 521/-, for the month of November, 2004 (or 11/04), the last and current readings are 9098 and “NA”, but the units consumed are 576 units. Certainly, these consumed units are not minimum units, because from 5/05 to 7/06, the appellant has charged for 150 units as the minimum consumption. The appellant has charged for 242 units for 9/06, 11/06 and 1/07, though there is no change in meter reading and it stands at 9098 and “NA” for last and current reading. We also checked the few electricity bills’ amount. While for the minimum consumption of 150 units, the tariff is Rs. 2/- per unit, the appellant has charged Rs. 327/- for 44 units for the billing month of 7/04 (Paper No. 27/4 of the record of District Forum). The total amount of the bill is Rs. 44,994/- including arrears. We fail to understand as to how the billing has been done. At a tariff of Rs. 2/- per unit, it comes to Rs. 88/-. Even if the meter rent, electricity charges are added to it, the bill amount cannot be Rs. 327/-. Similarly, for 1/01, the last and current meter readings are 950 and 950, but the units consumed have been shown as 1752 units. At a tariff of Rs. 2/- per unit, it comes to Rs. 88/-. Even if the meter rent, electricity charges are added to it, the bill amount cannot be Rs. 327/-. Similarly, for 1/01, the last and current meter readings are 950 and 950, but the units consumed have been shown as 1752 units. Interestingly, the bill amount is only Rs. 1536/- (Paper No. 27/3 of the District Forum’s record). There are various such other entries, which itself speak that the appellant has fabricated the account of the respondent with a motive to cover-up its inaction and injustice done to the respondent. Therefore, on the basis of these details, the appellant cannot take the defence that bills were being sent to the respondent with correct meter reading. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the respondent has not given the dates of depositing the amount of Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 311/- and Rs. 100/-. It appears that he has not inspected District Forum’s file carefully. At Paper No. 5/12 of the District Forum’s record, photocopies of receipts are available, which clearly reveal that Rs. 4,000/- was deposited on 03.09.2001 vide receipt No. 365959 and the appellant has accepted the payment as part payment. Acceptance of part payment also shows that there was a dispute in respect of the electricity bills. All these facts and circumstances of the case lead us to believe that the appellant had been committing deficiency in service again and again and the respondent had undergone a lot of harassment and mental agony. In the instant case, we are also of the view that the respondent was never at fault. She was always willing to pay the bills. What she had requested was that the bills should be issued with actual meter reading and correct connection number, but the appellant did not take any action and went on issuing incorrect bills. Not only this, the respondent’s connection was disconnected in the year 2001, which she got reconnected on payment of Rs. 100/- as reconnection charges. Now the connection has again been disconnected by the UPCL in the year 2004 and is lying disconnected since then. During this period, the complainant has expired and her husband, who is more than 75 years old, is passing his old age’s painful days without the facility of electricity. 100/- as reconnection charges. Now the connection has again been disconnected by the UPCL in the year 2004 and is lying disconnected since then. During this period, the complainant has expired and her husband, who is more than 75 years old, is passing his old age’s painful days without the facility of electricity. The hard hearted appellant says that the amount of the electricity bill be deposited first and then the respondent, now her surviving husband, should get the electricity connection reconnected after completing all those formalities, which are required for a new connection. The appellant refers to Regulation Nos. 19(iv), 19(v), 19(vi) and 8 in this regard. In our view, the regulation will be applicable only when the respondent has defaulted in payment of the bills. This is a case where the appellant’s inaction is apparent. Therefore, it will be most unjust to refer to rules and regulations. Referring to regulation would amount to further harassment of the respondent. However, we are of the view that it would not be proper and just to issue bill of minimum charges to the respondent, as directed by the District Forum. The last reading 9098 is not in dispute. That means, the respondent has consumed 9098 units since the installation of the electricity connection. Therefore, the appellant shall charge for 9098 units @ 2/- per unit, but no surcharge shall be added, because surcharge is charged when the consumer has defaulted in payment. In the instant case, the respondent was always willing to pay the electricity bill. It was appellant whose inaction was the main cause of dispute. The appellant shall also adjust in the bill the amount paid by the respondent in the year 2001, as part payment and also the cost awarded by the District Forum. After receiving the rectified bill, the respondent shall deposit the bill’s amount within 15 days from the date of its receipt, and the appellant shall reconnect the electricity connection within 3 days from the date of payment without any reconnection charges and without asking the respondent to complete the formalities as per Regulation No. 8 or any other rule or regulation, whatsoever these be. So, the impugned order is modifiable accordingly and the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 9. For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. So, the impugned order is modifiable accordingly and the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 9. For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is modified in the above terms. No order as to costs.