IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.1590 OF 2015 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
K. M. IBRAHIM SON OF K.M. BHAVA, AGED 55 YEARS, DEEPAK CONSTRUCTION, NEKKAREKADU, VITTLA, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. – 574 243.
….APPELLANT (BY SMT. K.B. JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MESCOM LTD.
HAMPANKATTA, MANGALORE-575 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) MESCOM LIMITED, VITTAL SUB-DIVISION, VITTAL, D.K-575 002.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELEL) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY ZONAL OFFICE, CHAMUNDI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.1633, SRI.ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX, ANIKETAN ROAD, (NORTH) P AND T BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
4. THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 9/2 6TH FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORM (CGRF) MESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, PADADIGM PLAZA , A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALURU, D.K-575 002.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 R-4 AND R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 51792 OF 2012 DATED 07.04.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of dismissal 07.04.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.51792 of 2012, petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner is a jelly stone and crushing unit under the name and style ‘Stone Land Construction’ which was earlier known as ‘Deepak Construction’. Said unit was provided with electricity supply by Mangaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (‘MESCOM’ for short) through Meter No.VP43. Petitioner submits that the meter was installed in the year 1997 and has never been replaced and he was not a defaulter in payment of electricity bills. On 24.05.2011, MESCOM issued a demand letter vide Annexure-D, to the petitioner demanding to pay a sum of Rs.3,45,578/- towards short claim stating that the meter was replaced in September 2007, to which the petitioner submitted his objections vide Annexure-E. When the said objections were not considered, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Engineer (Elecl.) and Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure-F).
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the order dated 12.12.2011, petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.130 of 2012 before this court. The said writ petition was allowed in part by setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and directed that the demand notice be treated as show-cause notice and permitted the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice and on reply, directed the respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned order. Respondent No.2, without holding proper enquiry, held that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount within 15 days, vide order dated 18.02.2012, Annexure-C. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2012, Annexure-B.
Petitioner challenged the said orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Original Authority, before the respondent No.4 - Electricity Ombudsman, who in turn rejected the same vide order dated 21.11.2012, Annexure-A.
Aggrieved by the above orders, petitioner preferred another Writ Petition No.51792 of 2012 seeking to quash the orders at Annexures-A, B and C.
After hearing both sides, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the supplemental claim was not barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, petitioner is in appeal before this court.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsels and perused the records.
5. From perusal of the records, L.T.Rating Division conducted a Technical Audit of the subject installation on 18.04.2011 and, after inspection, sent report to the O & M Sub-Division, and in the report, they have mentioned the meter multiplier of the subject installation as K.15, and during verification of the consumer’s docket, the office found out that though Meter Reader had reported that meter multiplier as K-15, the Computer Operator in the office had failed to enter the multiplier as K-15 and , instead, had entered multiplier as K-1. On account of non-application of the K-15 multiplier, the computer had given an output of just 5,359 units instead of 84,339 units and thus 78,980 units was not shown and not billed. Because of the said mistake, there was a short claim because of non-billing. When the said fact was noticed by the respondents, they issued a notice dated 18.02.2012 calling upon the petitioner to make a short claim demand.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the short claim demand notice approached the Electricity Ombudsman, Bengaluru by way of an appeal. The Electricity Ombudsman after considering the entire material on record has held that respondent No.1 has clarified that, after rectification of the bills, the arrears amounting to Rs.3,45,578/- had been continuously shown in the energy bills issued to the petitioner and come to a conclusion that there was an erroneous billing on account of the non-application of the multiplier K-15 in respect of the subject installation and, hence, issued a revised bill. Further, it is also held that regulation provides for recovery of bills in case of erroneous billing. It is further held that claims found to have not suffered from any time limitation and consequently, dismissed the appeal.
7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Bengaluru filed W.P.No.51792/2012. The learned single Judge after considering the entire material on record held that there is no legal infirmity in the determination made by the Electricity Ombudsman in holding that the supplemental claim was not barred by limitation and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
8. As observed above, the Meter Reader had reported that the multiplier as K-15, the Computer Operator in the office had failed to enter the multiplier as K-15 and instead had entered multiplier as K-1. Because of the said mistake, the computer given an output of just 5,359 units instead of 84,339 units. The computer could not shown the remaining units because of the said mistake and the same was pointed out in a technical audit conducted by L.T.Rating Division. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has clarified regarding the rectification of the bills, arrears etc. That if any short claims caused by erroneous billing are noticed, the consumer is liable to pay the difference.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents cannot recover any arrears after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as arrears of the charges of electricity. Clause 29.08 provides for recovery of bills in case of erroneous billing and in the present case, the licensee has taken coercive steps as per L.T.Rating Division’s report and issued a revised bill and the said is confirmed by respondent No.1 and shown in the energy bills continuously and the claims found to have not suffered from any time limitation. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, in view of Clause 29.03.
10. The claim made by the respondents is short claim because of the mistake in calculating energy consumption as there was an error in multiplying the meter reading by the computer operator resulting in a lesser calculation of the electricity consumed. The Electricity Ombudsman and the learned single Judge, after considering the entire material on record rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD