RSA No.3241 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3241 of 1987 Date of Decision:05.05.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ...Appellant Versus M/s Kissan Rice Mills .....Respondent 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Aftab Singh Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This is an appeal by the defendant-Board, assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1986 passed by learned trial Court/Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur as well as judgment and decree dated 11.05.1987 passed by learned First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, holding that defendant-Board is not entitled to recover excess amount of Rs.24,222/- from the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Plaintiff-respondent has instituted the suit for declaration that excess amount raised by the defendant-Board is illegal and incorrect and to stop recovery of the excess amount raised by the defendant Board. RSA No.3241 of 1987 2 3. Defendant-Board contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing the written statement saying that from the date of installation of meter installed at the plaintiff’s premises was slow and defective; at the time of surprise visit by the officers of the Board meter was found running slow. The further case of the defendant-Board is, since plaintiff failed to consume 85% of the electricity agreed to be consumed hence, plaintiff is bound to pay excess amount as surcharge; the another reason for recovery of Rs.24,222./- was that meter was not showing correct reading and hence was running slow and bill raised for the excess amount is correct; beside these pleas defendant has contested the suit on the ground that suit in the Civil Court is not maintainable. 4. Defendant-Board has instituted the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The appeal of the defendant-Board was dismissed with the direction that defendant-Board is not entitled to recover excess amount beyond the bill raised time to time. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present appeal the only substantial question of law arises is:- As to whether defendant-Board can recover any excess amount on the ground that meter was found running slow/defective without making compliance of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? 7. Undisputedly no case was taken by the defendant-Board that plaintiff is guilty of tempering with the meter. The undisputed case of the defendant is meter was installed and from the very beginning it was slow/defective. 8. Sub Section 6 of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 reads as under:- RSA No.3241 of 1987 3 “Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the meter shall be decided upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the 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 of 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 days’ notice of his Intention so to do.” 9. From the perusal of Sub-Section 6 of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, I have no hesitation to hold that in the event of any dispute about the correctness of the meter, matter shall have to be referred by either party to the Inspector. Electrical Inspector thereafter shall assess the amount. In the absence of any reference to the Electrical Inspector, defendant-Board has absolutely no jurisdiction to recover the excess amount on the ground that meter was running slow. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the defendant-appellant. RSA No.3241 of 1987 4 10. In view of answer to the substantial question of law, appeal is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 05.05.2010 sharmila