IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 14983 of 1999(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.FATHIMA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.C.MOHAMMED SHERIEF, CHENGAMATH HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL MR.NOORJI NOUSHAD MR.K.C.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PUNNAYOORKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRICHUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRICHUR. ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 14983 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. In 1993, some defect was noticed in the meter installed at the petitioner's premises and at the request of the petitioner, the meter was replaced. The petitioner found serious discrepancies in the consumption recorded in the new meter also. The petitioner filed a complaint before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent verified the meter reading on 24.10.1998 and issued Ext.P1 adjustment invoice demanding a sum of Rs.2,40,266/- from the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the said bill contending that the petitioner had not consumed electricity warranting payment of such huge sum as electricity charges. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent to check the meter to ascertain whether it is defective or not. Since that complaint was not attended to, the petitioner filed a detailed representation, Ext.P2 dated 17.11.1998, before the 2nd respondent. On the basis of Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent through the Executive Engineer (Electrical Section) Kunnamkulam, to check the meter and ascertain whether the meter installed in the petitioner's premises is defective or not. The petitioner remitted test fee of Rs.60/- as directed by the 1st respondent. The 1st 2 respondent replaced the electricity meter with a new one. As per new meter, the petitioner's average monthly electricity consumption was only 243 units as is evident from Ext.P3 meter card of the petitioner. The petitioner later came to understand that the 1st respondent forwarded the defective meter to the electricity meter testing unit at TMR, Shornur. Thereafter, on 5.3.1990 another adjustment invoice, Ext.P4, was issued to the petitioner granting a rebate of Rs.20,001.45 and demanding a sum of Rs.2,30,184/- and stating that as per the petitioner's request, the meter was tested at TMR and as per the calibration certificate, the petitioner is eligible for reduction of Rs.20,001.43 from the additional bill issued to the petitioner previously. The petitioner was directed to collect back the testing fee of Rs.60/- as per Ext.P5 letter. Despite repeated requests by the petitioner, in that regard, the 1st respondent refused to furnish a copy of the calibration certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.P.No.6530/1999 before this Court, in which, by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent to give the petitioner a statement within a period of two weeks and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the matter with notice to the petitioner with a direction not to disconnect the supply for non payment of the invoice amount. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P8 calculation statement and Ext.P9 calibration certificate were issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the 3 2nd respondent heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P11 order, by which, the amount was reduced to Rs.78,532/-. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order in this original petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that when admittedly the meter is defective, the petitioner could not have been mulcted with the liability to pay additional charges in respect of consumption of electricity, which the petitioner all along disputed. According to the petitioner, the respondents had no jurisdiction to decide the question without referring the same to the Electrical Inspector as required under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner submits that the invoice now issued to the petitioner has no relation whatsoever to the actual electricity consumed by the petitioner as is evident from the fact that the respondents themselves had no definite idea about any excess consumption of electricity by the petitioner since the original invoice was for Rs.2,90,266/- which was later reduced to Rs.2,30,184/- and still later to Rs.78,532/-. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. They take the contention that they are entitled to decide the question in view of Regulation 35 of the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which provides for getting the defective meter tested by the Board or the Electrical Inspector and therefore, in this case, the respondents were perfectly justified in 4 testing the meter and deciding the electricity charges payable by the petitioner, which only they had done by the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The question as to how defective metres are to be dealt with is specifically stipulated in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which reads thus: “26. Meters.- (1)..... xxx xxx xxx xxx (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter 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 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 days' notice of his intention so to do.” The Board cannot frame regulations contrary to Section 26(6). That being so, I am of opinion that the dispute regarding the correctness of the meter reading could have been dealt with only as per the procedure prescribed in Section 26(6), without which, the respondents could not have raised any invoice on the petitioner for alleged additional consumption of electrical energy. It is also a fact that in three different invoices, the respondents have given three different amounts as charges for alleged excess consumption of energy, which 5 ranged from Rs.2,90,266/- to Rs.78,532/-. That itself shows that the respondents had no definite case about the alleged excess consumption of energy by the petitioner and that they had not followed any accepted method of calculating the amounts due. In any event, without reference to the Electrical Inspector, the respondents could not have either decided that the meter was faulty or estimated the amount for the energy supplied to the consumer, which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6). That being so, I am satisfied that the demand made on the petitioner is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P11 order is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional electricity charges in addition to what she has paid in accordance with the regular bills issued to her. If the petitioner has paid any amounts pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the same shall be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 6 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 14983 of 1999-H ================== J U D G M E N T 9th October, 2009