HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2651 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.02.2011 **** Ramesh Chander Kaila . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. NS Jagdeva, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the difference in the energy bill on account of the defective running of the meter can be recovered from the consumer for a period exceeding six months in purported exercise of the power under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? (2). The petitioner-consumer was served with a notice dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure P5) by the respondent-Authorities, the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- In this connection it is intimated that A/c of your energy bill has been checked by the inspection party of this office and found that meter existing at your CWP No.2651 of 2009.doc - 2 – premises was defective/short assessing from 11/2000 to 9/02. So the a/c is over-hauled from 11/2000 to 9/02 @ 5448 units. For 2 months SOP ED Oct To be charged 202484 6416 2618 Already charged 301152 967 413 Av. Basis 172369 5449 2003 Ist Around 7/2000 – 5158 To be charged 9/2000 5738 Sop 1,72,369 --------- ED 5449 10,896 Oct 2203 = 10896/2 = 5448 units Total 180,021” (3). The aggrieved petitioner approached the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab in a petition under Section 26(6) & (7) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short, ‘the Act’) who vide order dated 13.03.2007 (Annexure P8) held that since the meter installed in the petitioner’s premises was found to be defective on checking, the respondents could raise demand for consumption of electricity for a period not exceeding six months prior to the date of replacement of the defective meter i.e. 19.02.2002 on the basis of the consumption recorded by the new meter installed on 10.09.2002. (4). The respondents preferred an appeal against the above- stated order under Section 36(2) of the Act which has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala-cum-Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure P10) giving rise to these proceedings. 2 CWP No.2651 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6). The respondents have in their grounds of appeal (Annexure P9) though specifically raised a plea before the Appellate Authority that the Chief Electrical Inspector had not given any finding as to whether the meter was ‘defective’ or ‘dead stop’, nevertheless the Appellate Authority also returned no finding to that effect. A meter found to be ‘dead stop’ can admittedly entitle the respondent-Board to recover the difference of energy consumption for a period beyond six months also. (7). The record reveals that the respondents in their very first notice dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure P5) acknowledged the fact that the meter was ‘defective’ and was ‘running slow’. It was thus, not a case of ‘dead stop’ meter. The Appellate Authority, therefore, could not have held the respondents entitled to recover the difference of energy consumption for a period exceeding six months in contravention of Section 26(6) of the Act which reads as follows:- 26. Meters – (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the 3 CWP No.2651 of 2009.doc - 4 – opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save, as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity: Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-Section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven day’s notice of his intention so to do.” (Emphasis applied) (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure P10) is set aside; the respondents are permitted to recover the difference in bill for a period upto six months before the date of replacement of the defective meter i.e. 19.02.2002. (9). It is stated that the petitioner has already deposited the amount in terms of the order dated 18.01.2009 of this Court. If that is so, no further direction is required to be issued. (10). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4 CWP No.2651 of 2009.doc - 5 – 5