AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘UPCL’) has challenged order dated 06.11.2017 passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Haridwar (in short ‘CGRF’). By the impugned order, complaint made by consumer (respondent) was allowed and assessment of ₹59,57,920/-, made by UPCL, was set-aside and UPCL was directed to make fresh assessment as per para no. 3.1.3 (6) of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (The Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 (from hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2007”).
According to petitioner, respondent is running a manufacturing unit in District Haridwar and is having electricity connection of 650 KVA; based on MRI report, UPCL came to know that respondent’s meter is not recording power consumption from R-phase, out of three phases (i.e. Red Yellow and Blue phases), therefore, check-meter was installed in his premises; reading of check-meter revealed that meter, installed in the premises of respondent, was recording 29.53% lesser consumption. It is contended that under recording by electricity meter was due to carbon deposit at the joint of CT wire and R-phase; the consumer was getting full power supply from all the three phases or else the heavy equipments, installed in the manufacturing unit of the respondent could not have functioned, if there was no power supply from R-phase.
In the complaint, respondent contended that his electricity connection is in use since 2007 and he has been paying electricity dues regularly, without any default; on 13.07.2017, some Officials of UPCL visited his premises and checked the meter by opening the seal, and also installed check-meter which is still there in the premises. It is further contended that electricity bills for the month of July and August 2017 were duly paid, however, for the month of September 2017, complainant was charged additional amount of ₹59,57,920/- under the assessment head; he objected to the additional demand stating that he has been regularly paying electricity bills, therefore, there cannot be any question of additional assessment. Thus, he questioned the additional demand made by UPCL.
Learned CGRF, relying upon para 3.1.3 of Regulations of 2007, set-aside the assessment of ₹59,57,920/- made by UPCL. It was held that complainant cannot be made liable to pay the difference due to defect in the meter for a period exceeding six months, and UPCL was directed to make afresh assessment as per Clause (6) of para 3.1.3 of Regulations of 2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned CGRF wrongly relied upon para 3.1.3 of the aforesaid Regulations, as it was the specific case of UPCL that there is no defect in the meter and under recording of power consumption by the meter is due to carbon deposit at the joint of CT wire and R-phase.
Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the document enclosed as annexure 7 to the writ petition, which is reply dated 28.10.2017 submitted by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division to CGRF, Haridwar. In para 2 of the reply, it was mentioned that MRI report revealed that electricity meter was not recording electricity supply in one phase since July 2015, therefore, electricity, supplied between July 2015 to August 2017, was assessed, and accordingly, demand for the electricity consumed by the petitioner was raised. In para 2 of the reply, it is specifically mentioned that there was no defect in the electricity meter and the meter was under recording electricity supply due to carbon deposit in the joint of CT wire and R-phase. In para 3 of that letter, it was reiterated that the old meter was functioning properly.
Careful perusal of the impugned order passed by CGRF reveals that the stand taken by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division in para 2 of letter dated 28.10.2017, was not considered at all. In fact, there is no discussion about the stand taken on behalf of petitioner in the entire order. Without dealing with the said contention, learned CGRF held it to be a case of defective meter. The order passed by learned CGRF is thus interferable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Jalgaon & another vs. Vega Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018 SCC Online Bom 6567. Para 32 and 33 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
“32.In paragraph 16 of the Municipal Corporation case (supra), this Court recorded that in a similar case in the matter of MPEB Board (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that the expression "meter is correct", would mean that there is no fault or defect in the meter. Where there was no fault in the meter, but the fault was in the wiring, this defect could not be held to be a defect in the meter. It was further concluded, by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Southern India Marine Products Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1995 AIHC 4959, that the electrical inspector does not have the jurisdiction under Section 26(6) when there is a defect in the wiring and so long as there is no defect in the meter itself, no question arises as to whether, the meter is correct or not. A same view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Shree Plywoods Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 Patna 84, that where a case involves melting of a wire that resulted in the loss of current in one of the phases and consequently, there was an incorrect recording of consumption, it would not fall within the purview of Section 26(6).
33.It is, therefore, obvious in the present case that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the meter. An under-recording of electricity consumed was associated with the act of the electrician in wrongly attaching the wires to the R, Y and B phases. I am, therefore, of the view that such a wrong attachment of wiring by the electrician would not amount to a defect in the meter. Consequentially, due to the under- recording of the meter, the consumer has consumed such energy as was normally required to be consumed and the Petitioner has lost the revenue for such under-recording.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent refers to definition of ‘meter’ as given in clause 2(ff) of UERC (The Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007, which reads as under:-
“2(ff) “Meter” means a device suitable for recording consumption of electrical energy supplied or any other parameter during any specified period of and shall include, wherever applicable, other associated equipment such as CT, PT etc. necessary for such recording.
It shall also include any seal or sealing arrangement provided by the Licencee for preventing unauthorized use of electricity;”
Learned Senior Counsel submits that carbon deposit, if any, in CT will amount to defect in meter. He thus submits that the additional assessment made by UPCL was rightly set-aside by CGRF, as it is the duty of UPCL to maintain the meter, including CT, PT in perfect working condition, and CT/PT is part of meter, as per the definition given in clause 2(ff) of the Regulations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in the aforesaid judgment, rendered by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court, similar contention raised by consumer was repelled. To buttress his argument, he refers to para 15 of the judgment, which is reproduced below, for ready reference:-
“15.He has then referred to the definition of "meter" under clause 2(s) of the MERC (Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and Determination of Compensation) Regulations, 2014 (for short "the MERC Regulations, 2014"), which reads thus :-
"2(s) "Meter" means a set of integrating instruments used to measure and/or record and store the information regarding amount of electrical energy supplied or the quantity of electrical energy contained in the supply, in a given time, which includes whole current meter and metering equipment, such as current transformer, capacitor voltage transformer or potential or voltage transformer with necessary wiring and accessories, communication systems used for Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) and also includes pre-payment meters."”
Since learned CGRF has not dealt with the contention raised by petitioner in para 2 of the reply dated 28.10.2017, even though there is reference to said reply in 3rd page of the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order passed by CGRF is liable to be set-aside and is hereby set-aside. The complaint made by respondent shall stand restored to the file of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Haridwar and shall be decided afresh, as per law.
Subject to respondent depositing the current power charges, excluding surcharge, after adjusting the amount deposited by respondent in terms of order of this Court, within one week from today, power supply to respondent’s Industrial Unit shall be restored. Payment of surcharge by respondent shall abide by outcome of the complaint to be decided by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Haridwar.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.