Is the Haryana Panel's Ruling on Average Power Bills a Sign of Administrative Failure?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Haryana RTS Commission has taken a firm stand against the practice of issuing average electricity bills, branding it a serious administrative failure. This article explores their recent ruling, highlighting the financial and emotional distress caused to consumers.
Key Takeaways
- Haryana RTS Commission criticizes average billing practices.
- Officials fined for administrative negligence.
- Consumers to receive compensation for incorrect billing.
- Need for reform in public service delivery.
- Significant financial burden on consumers addressed.
Chandigarh, Jan 14 (NationPress) The Haryana Right to Service (RTS) Commission has labeled the prolonged practice of issuing average electricity bills, followed by significant one-time bills for consumers associated with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN), as a serious case of administrative negligence.
In a cited instance, it was noted that the consumer either did not receive bills for a substantial time or was issued negative bills that were non-payable. Subsequently, a staggering electricity bill of approximately Rs 2.38 lakh was presented.
Even after a complaint was filed, the rectification process was carried out in a piecemeal and incomplete fashion, revealing the irresponsible behavior of the relevant officials.
The commission highlighted that the required notice and minimum time limits set forth in the Electricity Supply Code were blatantly ignored.
Exercising its penal authority under Section 17 (1) (h) of the Haryana Right to Service Act, 2014, the commission imposed a Rs 5,000 fine on two officials responsible for erroneous sundry entries and mandated that each pay Rs 1,000 as compensation to the affected consumer.
Additionally, the commission expressed its discontent with the officials who approved the incorrect entries and ordered their names to be documented in the commission's records.
The commission also mandated that the consumer receive additional compensation of Rs 500 for each incorrectly issued billing cycle since July 2022. This amount will initially be covered by the corporation and may later be recouped from the responsible agency or officials.
In a separate case from Hisar district, average electricity bills were issued for two power accounts of a consumer from March 2020 to February 2024.
Previously, bills indicated a bi-monthly usage of around 160 units, but later one account recorded consumption of approximately 45,000 units, culminating in a bill exceeding Rs 3 lakh, while the second account showed consumption of about 20,000 units, resulting in a bill of Rs 98,000.
The commission criticized this practice as imposing an undue financial burden on the consumer and causing significant mental distress.
Point of View
It is imperative to emphasize that the Haryana RTS Commission's recent findings reflect a troubling trend of bureaucratic negligence that not only affects consumer rights but also highlights the need for systemic reforms in public service delivery. The Nation stands with the people in seeking accountability and transparency.
NationPress
14/01/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Haryana RTS Commission's recent ruling about?
The Haryana RTS Commission has ruled against the practice of issuing average electricity bills followed by unexpectedly high one-time bills, labeling it as administrative negligence.
What penalties were imposed on the officials?
The commission imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on two officials responsible for the errors and directed each to pay Rs 1,000 in compensation to the affected consumer.
How are consumers compensated for this issue?
Consumers are entitled to additional compensation of Rs 500 for each incorrect billing cycle since July 2022, which will initially be paid by the corporation.
What did the commission find in the Hisar district case?
In Hisar, average bills were issued for two accounts, leading to an excessive financial burden on the consumer due to inflated consumption charges.
Why is this ruling significant?
The ruling highlights the need for accountability in administrative practices and aims to protect consumer rights against arbitrary billing.
