Electricity billing disputes: regulatory commissions may issue compliance directions, but individual complaints must follow the statutory grievance forum.

Under the Electricity Act, 2003, a State Electricity Regulatory Commission may issue general directions to licensees to ensure compliance and prevent consumer harassment, but it cannot impose a blanket refund of supplementary or amended bills without examining the individual factual basis of each case. The statutory consumer grievance redressal forum under Section 42(5), with appeal to the Ombudsman under Section 42(6), is the prescribed remedy for individual billing disputes, and the Commission's adjudicatory role does not extend to such consumer complaints in the first instance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Electricity Regulatory Commission could issue general directions to licensees regarding supplementary or amended bills, and whether a blanket refund direction was within its jurisdiction; (ii) Whether individual consumers aggrieved by billing disputes were required to pursue the statutory grievance redressal mechanism under Section 42(5) instead of approaching the Commission.

Issue (i): Whether the State Electricity Regulatory Commission could issue general directions to licensees regarding supplementary or amended bills, and whether a blanket refund direction was within its jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Commission, constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003, has regulatory powers to ensure compliance with licence conditions, tariff norms, and statutory obligations, including the power to issue general directions to licensees to prevent consumer harassment. However, the power to direct refund of amounts in a blanket manner, without a proper investigation into the individual factual basis of each supplementary or amended bill, was held to be beyond its jurisdiction. The statutory scheme contemplated enforcement action on a proper factual foundation, not a sweeping refund order across all cases.

Conclusion: The Commission could issue general regulatory directions, but the blanket refund direction was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether individual consumers aggrieved by billing disputes were required to pursue the statutory grievance redressal mechanism under Section 42(5) instead of approaching the Commission.

Analysis: The Act creates a specific consumer grievance redressal forum under Section 42(5), followed by the Ombudsman under Section 42(6), for redress of individual consumer complaints. The adjudicatory function of the State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) is confined to disputes between licensees and generating companies and does not extend to individual consumer grievances. Accordingly, where the statutory forum exists, consumers must pursue that remedy, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide such individual disputes in the first instance.

Conclusion: Individual billing grievances had to be pursued before the forum under Section 42(5), with further remedy before the Ombudsman, and the Commission had no jurisdiction to decide them directly.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the Commission's general supervisory authority but curtailed its power to grant blanket monetary relief, while affirming that individual consumer billing disputes must be resolved through the statutory grievance redressal machinery.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Electricity Act, 2003, a regulatory commission may issue general compliance directions to licensees, but individual consumer billing disputes must be addressed through the statutory grievance redressal forum and Ombudsman, and blanket refund orders without proper factual inquiry exceed jurisdiction.

---