IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 6717 of 2002(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ELIKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE OUSEPH, RESIDING AT KANNIKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPPUNITHURA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MARADU, VYTTILA. 4. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.1TO4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.11817/2002 IN OP. 6717/2002 Dismissed 04.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT INVOICE DT. 23.12.97 P3:- COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT BILL. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 12.10.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LAST ISSUED REGULAR SPOT BILL DT. 13.2.2002. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 29.10.01 IN OP. NO.32298/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.2.02 IN APPEAL FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE ADDITIONAL BILL ISSUED TO THIS PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 25.2.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 6717 of 2002-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. She is a domestic consumer with consumer No.3659. The challenge is against Ext.P7 order by which Ext.P4 was disposed of rejecting her contentions. 2. The dispute between the parties arose when, by Ext.P2 invoice the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.32,098/- as additional amount to be collected from her towards the electricity charges. Later on, they revised the same and by Ext.P3, a revised bill was issued showing an amount of Rs.9,946/-. This was objected to by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4. The petitioner approached this court in O.P.No.32298/2001 challenging the additional bill, which was disposed of directing the competent authority to take a decision on Ext.P4. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order has been passed rejecting the appeal. 3. A reading of Ext.P7 reveals the following facts. The petitioner was a consumer of electricity from 1987 onwards. The meter was found defective from 1991 onwards. In spite of intimation given by the petitioner to the Board, the Board did not replace the same. Only in 1997 the meter OP 6717/2002 -2- was replaced. Ultimately, when dispute arose, they effected disconnection for non-payment of the electricity charges. It is noted in Ext.P7 that the additional bill was prepared in accordance with Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The order does not say that there had been any tampering by the consumer or that any other illegal activity was done by the consumer. The question is whether in such circumstances, the imposition of liability by way of additional bill, is justified. 4. The matter is covered by the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, viz. Section 26(6). Going by Section 26(6) of the Act, the matter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector, especially since the petitioner objected to the bill. That was not done. Therefore, the Electrical Inspector was deprived of any opportunity to verify the facts and assess the electricity charges payable by the petitioner. Apart from that, as there is no tampering, etc. of the meter, the maximum period to which the charges could be levied, is only six months. 5. The above legal position stands declared by this court in John P. Stephen v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (3) KLT SN page 7, Case No.7), wherein it was held that in the absence of any tampering by the consumer, only six months' prior period of demand can be made and the Board cannot demand OP 6717/2002 -3- electricity charges for more than six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a recent decision of this court in George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. And others (ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 377) wherein the legal position with respect to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act was analysed in detail in the light of the various decisions of this court and the Apex Court. It was held that in cases where the consumer tampers with the meter and interferes with the functioning of the meter, the question of a dispute having to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) does not arise. Section 26(6) is intended for resolving genuine disputes regarding correctness of meter between the licensee and the consumer, by an independent arbiter namely the Electrical Inspector. It was also observed that the provision mandates the licensee to get the expert decision of the independent arbiter namely, the Electrical Inspector, when it is alleged that the meter is defective and is not recording correct consumption. That was not done in this case, obviously. 6. As already noticed, going by the findings in Ext.P7 itself, the meter was defective from 1991 onwards and was replaced only on 23.12.1997 and additional bill was issued only in the year 1999. The petitioner cannot be faulted for any of the alleged defects in the meter also. Therefore, the only OP 6717/2002 -4- alternative is to raise a demand for a period of six months alone. Now, the bill that has been issued, viz. Ext.P2 is for the period from 1991 to 1997, which cannot be supported at all. 7. Therefore, Exts.P3, P7 and P8 are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a revised bill only for a prior period of six months. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount already paid, as ordered by this court, will be adjusted towards the bill. If any excess amount has been collected, the same shall be adjusted towards future bills issued to the petitioner. The original petition is allowed as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 6717/2002 -5- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 6717of 2002-Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 4th December, 2008.