R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 15, 2010 M/s Punjab Card Board .... Appellant Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Guran, Advocate for Mr. K. S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff M/s Punjab Card Board, having remained partly successful in the courts below, has come up by way of instant second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant is consumer of electricity from the defendant-respondents. Meter of the plaintiff remained dead since September 2002 till June 2003. The defendants initially had been charging @ 4477 units per month since September 2002 till November 2002 and @ 3156 units per month since December 2002 till June 2003. However, R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 2 average consumption for the corresponding months of the preceding years i.e. since September 2001 till June 2002 came to 7296 units per month and accordingly, defendants demanded amount of ₹ 1,36,941/- by making calculations @ 7296 units per month for the period from September 2002 till June 2003, the period during which the meter remained dead, less the amount already charged. The plaintiff, by filing the suit, challenged the said demand to be illegal, unlawful, excessive and arbitrary and beyond the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Sales Regulation no. 74. The defendants justified the demand raised by them. Reference was made to commercial circular No.13 of 1996. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit partly directing the defendants to raise the demand on the basis of average consumption of next three months after the correct meter was installed. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Regulation No.73.1.2, which is reproduced hereunder :- “73.1.2. So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer's account right finally. CONSUMPTION PER CYCLE DS consumers NRS consumers 1. Up to 2 KW Load 100 Units/KW 100 Units/KW 2. Exceeding 2 KW and 200+60 units/KW 200+60 units/KW up to 5 KW of load in excess of load in excess of 2 KW of 2 KW 3. Load exceeding 5 KW 380+40 units/KW 760+80 units/KW of load in excess of load in excess of 5 KW of 5 KW” Learned counsel for the appellant contended that average consumption of preceding 4 or 6 months could be taken according to the aforesaid Regulation, whereas the defendants have taken average R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 4 consumption of 10 months since September 2001 till June 2002 and the same is in contravention of the aforesaid Regulation. The contention cannot be accepted. The aforesaid Regulation provides three alternatives. One alternative is average consumption of last 4 or 6 months. Second alternative is average consumption of the same months of the previous year. Third alternative is actual consumption recorded during the disputed period. Highest of the three alternatives can be charged. In the instant case, defendants adopted the second alternative of average consumption of same months of the preceding year. Consequently, the demand raised by the defendants was in accordance with the aforesaid Regulation. When average consumption of same months of the preceding year is taken into consideration, then the average consumption is not to be confined to last 4 or 6 months, as provided in the first alternative. In the second alternative, the average consumption has to be for the same number of months of the previous year as the number of months during which the meter remained dead. In the instant case, the defendants have adopted this alternative and raised the demand on the basis of average consumption of the same months of the preceding years. Consequently, the demand raised by the defendants could not be said to be illegal. However, defendants have not preferred any appeal against the judgments and decrees of the courts below. Consequently, the relief granted by the courts below to the plaintiff has to R. S. A. No. 1901 of 2010 5 be upheld. However, there is no merit in the instant second appeal because the demand raised by the defendants could not be said to be illegal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine. However, it is expressly made clear that if the demand, pursuant to decrees of the courts below, exceeds the amount of ₹ 1,36,941/-, which is the amount in dispute, then the excess amount shall not be recovered and the demand shall be confined to original amount of ₹ 1,36,941/- only. November 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE