In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:18.8.2011 M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories .....Appellant v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal has been filed by M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories (appellant-plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar has been dismissed. As per facts of this case, connection of the consumer (appellant herein) was checked by Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Patiala R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) [2] vide ECR No.903 dated 31.8.1991 and it was recommended that working of the meter may be got checked from MMTS, Patiala. The Assistant Executive Engineer, MMTS checked the meter of the consumer on 11.9.1991 and reported that the KWH meter was running 48.80% slow, KVAH meter 34.6% slow and M.D.I. 31.95% slow. The meter was once again checked on 1.2.1992, and as the meter was dead, it was changed. Thereafter, the Deputy Director/C.B Cell, Ludhiana on the basis of report of M.M.T.S. overhauled the accounts of the consumer from 6/91 to 1/92 and a notice dated 1.3.1992 raising the demand of `17,60,0005.56 was issued to the consumer. Consumer filed Civil Suit No.233 dated 7.4.1992 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar which was dismissed on 7.10.1997. Against this order it filed a Civil Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Ropar which was dismissed on 2.8.2000. Against this appeal RSA No.104 of 2001 was filed in the High Court. Simultaneously, the Board filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.12.2010 and the following order was passed:- “Accordingly, we permit the respondent to make a representation to the Committee in respect of its grievances and we request the Committee to decide the same preferably within two months from the date of filing of the same. The representation must be made within three weeks from today. Till disposal of the said representation, we request the High Court not to dispose off the second appeal pending before it.” In pursuance to this order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) [3] in the pending petition by the High Court, the consumer approached the Zonal Level Grievances Redressal Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the Committee') of the respondent-Board (now PSPCL). The Committee heard the case of the consumer on 17.5.2011 and after perusal of the record, the impugned order was passed, the relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinafter:- “a) The meter of the consumer was since defective it was replaced on 29.7.91 vide M.C.O. No.78/129 dated 1.7.91 but this meter was out of order and again the meter was changed on 5.8.91 vide M.C.O. No.82/129 dated 2.8.91. This meter was also defective hence it was again changed on 17.8.91 vide M.C.O. No.81/129. From the perusal of consumption of the consumer that as compared to the consumption of the months of June, July 1991 the recorded actual consumer serial-wise 388344, 301692 units has been recorded very less. Hence, since the meter was out of order the Khata of the consumer from 1.6.91 to 16.8.91 for the last three months (3/91 to 5/91) may be rectified on the basis of average. b) The checking of the premises of the consumer was conducted by the A.E.E./Flying Squad, Patiala vide E.C.R. No.93 dated 31.8.91 and it was reported that the meter of the consumer is not running on one phase. For checking the meter/CT PT slowness the matter was referred to MMTS. AEE/MMTS checked the meter/CT/PT on 11.9.91 in the presence of consumer and submitted the report as under:- R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) [4] “KWH Meter slow by 48.80% MDI slow 31.95% KVAH Meter slow by 34.62%.” The CT PT SJO No.108/3598 dated 13.9.91 of the consumer being defective, were replaced. Hence the Khata of the consumer may be rectified on the basis of above lowness from 17.8.91 to 13.9.91. c) The connection of the consumer was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer/ M.M.T.S. Ludhiana on 2.1.92 and reported vide Memo No.8 dated 2.1.92 that the meter is dead stop. On the basis of this report the meter of the consumer was replaced on 1.2.92 vide M.C.O. No.100/129 dated 1.2.92. It could not be established as to when the meter of the consumer was dead before 1.2.92. Hence as per instructions of P.S.P.C.L. after applying the slowness factor for out of order meter on the actual consumption recorded from 14.9.91 to 1.2.92 and 17.8.91 to 13.9.91 and the enhancement in the load during this period from 1640.479 KVA to 1980.479 KV may be rectified.” Aggrieved against this order passed by the Committee, the consumer/appellant has approached this Court through the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Longia, learned counsel for the respondents. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide impugned order dated 20.5.2011 accounts of the appellant has been overhauled from 1.6.1991 to 16.8.1991 on the average basis for the last three months i.e. from March 1991 to May 1991. It has R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) [5] been submitted that the meter of the appellant has been duly checked by respondents during this period i.e. on 31.5.1991, 29.7.1991, 5.8.1991 and 17.8.1991. Neither any reason as to why the meter was changed nor any defect was ever conveyed to the appellant. It is submitted that if the meter was duly checked during this period, its report should have been supplied to the appellant so that he could take appropriate steps. By not supplying its report for the above period, however, overhauling the electricity dues the respondent-PSPCL has violated the conditions of Electricity Act and principles of natural justice. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the respondent- PSPCL, Mr. R.S. Longia has submitted that the Committee has rightly held the appellant liable to pay a sum of `17,60,006/- and no fault can be pointed out in the findings. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. It will be relevant to mention here that neither there was any tampering of the meter by the appellant/consumer nor any effort has been made to steal the electric energy. There is nothing on file to show if any attempt has been made by the consumer to defraud the respondents. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the meter installed by the respondents time and again was defective and slow as a result of which the account of the appellant has been overhauled and an amount of `17,60,006/- has been found outstanding against the appellant. The respondent in its turn seems to have taken the decision to recover the above amount after rectification of the account of the consumer on the basis of the findings recorded in the impugned order as extracted here-in-above. In place of R.S.A. No.103 of 2001 (O&M) [6] raising the demand on average basis for this disputed period, the Committee has divided the period into three different parts and average of each part has been fastened upon the appellants. This is particularly so, when there is no fault of appellant concern. It is the own meters of the respondent-Board, which are found defective time and again. I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the average of consumption of six months prior to the date of dispute i.e. 5/91 and six months after the dispute period is over i.e. February 1992 to July 1992 is taken and demand is raised from the appellant concern. The average consumption for this period will be taken as consumption for each month falling between June 1991 to January 1992. Necessary exercise will be done by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the amount will be deposited by the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of demand notice. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and this regular second appeal stands disposed of accordingly. August 18, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*