AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Parvatha Rao, J.—The petitioner is a firm and it is running a Lodge by name Hotel Rukmini. The said Lodge has been receiving electrical energy from the 1st respondent-Board (Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board) under two service connect Lons; Fl/l1357 under which electrical energy is being supplied to air conditioners installed in that Lodge and Fl/11358 under which electrical energy is being supplied for other purposes to the said lodge. The petitioner complained to the respondents about the functioning of the meters. After finding that there was no proper response to its letters dated 2-7-1990 and 25-8-1990 requiring the respondents to have the meters tested and replaced, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition on 24-9-1990 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to replace the meters and reassess the power consumed for the period from January, 1989 till date for service connections No. F 1/11357 and No. F/11358 and to restrain the respondents from disconnecting the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner''s Lodge.
The Writ Petition was admitted on 4-10-1990. After this Writ Petition has come up for final hearing before us, the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 14-12-1996. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 10-3-1997 and also an additional counter-affidavit dated 26-3-1997.
The 3rd respondent states that in respect of service connection No. Fl/l1357 the meter was burnt in December, 1989, that new meter was installed in January, 1990 and that after the writ petition was filed once again the meter was changed on 30-5-1991 and mat, thereafter, there have been no complaints from the petitioner. He further states that the meter that was replaced on 30-5-1991 was sent for M.R.T test and that it was found that it was recording higher consumption at an average of 3.7% as per the test certificate issued by the M.R.T. In view of that, adjustment of the bills is made from 1/90 to 5/91 as per the statement filed in Court on 31-3-1997 showing that an excess amount of Rs. 2,606-60 ps., had been collected from the petitioner in respect of the energy consumed during that period and that the same has to be repaid to the petitioner.
As regards the service connection No. Fl/l1358, the 3rd respondent states that the meter was changed on 13-10-1989, even prior to the present complaints of the petitioner as regards the malfunctioning of the meter, and that as the new meter was burnt on 4-11-1989 another new meter was installed on 20-12-1989. Subsequently, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, this meter was also changed on 30-5-1991 and yet another new meter was installed. The meter replaced on 30-5-1991 was sent for M.R.T. test and as per the report received from the M.R.T., it was showing more consumption at an average of 16.67% as per the test certificate Consequently, in respect of this service connection also, the excess payment made in respect of the energy consumed for the period 1/90 to 5/91 has been as certained at Rs. 20,124/- as per the statement filed by the respondents on 31-3-1997.
It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the excess amount of Rs. 22,730-60 ps in respect of the two service connections of the petitioner''s Lodge (Rs. 2,606-60 ps. Rs. 20,124-00ps.) would be repaid to the petitioner by way of adjustment towards the future bills. The learned counsel for the petitioner took time to obtain instructions in that regard and now states that he had received instructions on behalf of the petitioner and that the petitioner would be willing to have the said sum adjusted without requiring the amount to be ascertained by the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (''the Act'' for short).
In the present case, we find that in spite of Section 26(6) of the Act and Condition No. 22.3.3 of the terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (''the Conditions'' for short), the respondents had not taken immediate steps on the complaint made by the petitioner by the two letters dated 2-7-1990 and 25-8-1990 complaining about the malfunctioning of the meters and requesting for testing of the same and replacing, if need be. Even after the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit tilt 1997. No doubt, the meters were changed as per what is stated now in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on 30-5-1991 and the meters replaced were sent for testing to the M.R.T and it was found that the complaints made on behalf of the petitioner were justified. Even after that, the respondents had not come forward to make appropriate corrections which they have now proposed. They had also not informed the petitioner of the findings of the M.R.T. reports. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act clearly provides that "where the consumer so enters into an agreement for hire of a meter, the licensee shall keep the meter correct, and in default of his doing so, the consumer shall for so long as the default continues, cease to be liable to pay for hire of the meter". Condition No. 22.2.1 of the Conditions also provides that "the electricity supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of correct meter which shall be hired by the Board and the Board shall keep the meter correct". This is a condition made by the Board itself in exercise of its powers u/s 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. This condition imposes the duty on the Board to keep the meter correct. Condition No. 22.2.2 also requires that once in every year the H.T. meter shall be recalibrated and standardised, if so desired by either the consumer or the Board by means of standard instrument, by the Board in the presence of the consumer or his representative provided however that the Board may conduct test cheek of meters (H.T. as well as L.T.) at intervals of six months or such other period as the Board may consider it necessary". This condition imposes a duty on the Board to see that the meters are corrected at least every six months by conducting test checks Condition No. 22.2.3 also provides that "the consumer shall be entitled on application to the Board''s Engineer of the area to have special test of the meter carried out any time and the expenses of such test shall be borne by the Board or the consumer according the meter is found to be defective or correct as a result of such a test; such meter shall be deemed to be correct if the limits of error do not exceed those laid down in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956". As per this condition, it is incumbent on the Board''s Engineers to have a special test of the meter carried out any time the consumer requires the same to be done. In the present case, it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner addressed letters dated 2-7-1990 and 25-8-1990 requesting that the two meters installed for its service connections to be tested and, if need be, replaced. In spite of that, the respondents have not moved in the matter and surprisingly we find that they complained that the petitioner had approached this Court on 24-9-1990 without giving them adequate time -- it is incredible that the respondents found two months time not adequate in a matter like this.
in view of the fact that the respondents have now accepted that a sum of Rs. 22,730-60 ps., is lying with them from at least June, 1991 towards excess amount collected for the energy consumed by the petitioner during the period 1/90 to 5/91 and, particularly, in view of the fact that in spite of the present writ petition pending in this Court since 4-10-1990 they have not cared to make immediate amends, we think it appropriate to require the respondents to repay the said sum of Rs. 22,730-60 ps., with interest at 18% per annum from 1-6-1991 till now. The interest amount itself will come up to about Rs. 24,000/- even on a rough calculation.
In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to repay the sum of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) in all without any future interest by way of adjustment towards the future bills due and payable by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate fee Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only).
Petition allowed.