The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) is the petitioner herein, challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. Pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the respondent herein, by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 10-02-2009, it was found that 'Y' phase of the energy meter was not recording consumption. The minimum data downloaded from the energy meter showed 'voltage missing' in 'Y' phase occurred on 28-09-2006 and was continuing. Hence a back assessment was imposed on the respondent reassessing the consumption at 50% of the recorded consumption for the period from 28-09-2006 to 31-12-2008. Initially an assessment was made demanding a sum of Rs.4,56,597/-. The said amount was revised on the directions of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) as Rs.4,02,029/-. The respondent approached the CGRF against the revised assessment. In Ext.P1 order the CGRF directed reassessment by taking 44% of the recorded consumption. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order the petitioner had approached the State Electricity Ombudsman. The representation was disposed of through Ext.P2 order. The Ombudsman found that the meter in question was tested by the Electrical Inspector and the test report concluded that the voltage on the 'Y' phase was 102V. The under recording was 14.5% of the actual consumption. Hence the under recording will be much less when the voltage on 'Y' phase was 129 V in 2006. On the basis of the test report it was found by the Ombudsman that the claim of the Board that the recorded consumption had reduced from 33.3% from 2006 onwards is erroneous. It is found that the short assessment should be based on concrete evidence and strong scientific methodologies. Having considered various factual aspects prevailing the Ombudsman found that it will be appropriate to accept the findings of the Electrical Inspector to compute the short assessment. It is found that 14.5% short fall was not persistently steady for a long period and it was randomly varying considering the fact that there is a steady change observed from 3/2008 onwards. The Ombudsman found that it would be fair in directing the petitioner Board to reassess by adding 14.5% of the recorded consumption from 3/2008 onwards. The Board was directed to reassess the respondent by adding 14.5% of the recorded energy from 3/2008 onwards and directed to issue revised invoices on that basis.
2. The Board is challenging Ext.P2 order both on legal and factual aspects. It is contended that the case at hand is not one coming within the purview of Section 26 (6) of the Act to treat the same as a case of faulty meter. Various decisions of this court was placed canvassing the position that non-recording or under recording of one phase in Energy Meter cannot be treated as the case of 'faulty meter' coming within the ambit and scope of Section 26 (6). But it is pertinent to note that the Ombudsman had not held in any manner that it is a case of 'faulty meter'. On the other hand what is held by the Ombudsman is that when a scientific data is available with respect to the extent of non- recording in the defective phase (Y-phase), the same has to be accepted for the purpose of back assessment, rather than making the back assessment on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Such a view taken by the Ombudsman cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. For limiting the period of back assessment from 3/2008 onwards, the Ombudsman had categorically mentioned reasons, pointing out that voltage factor was totally unsteady and varied randomly and any conclusive pattern was totally lacking. Therefore it cannot be observed that restrictions with respect to the period of back assessment was made in totally baseless manner.
3. Going by Section 10 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2005 the Ombudsman is vested with powers to receive any representation against any order passed by the CGRF, in order to facilitate their satisfaction or settlement by agreement through conciliation and mediation between the licencee and the complainant or by passing an award in accordance with the Regulations. Once the Ombudsman exercise such power vested on him and passes an award, it is not proper for this court to alter the findings on the factual aspects, unless convincing materials are produced to show that the findings are totally erroneous or totally unreasonable or arbitrary. In Ext.P2 the Ombudsman had enumerated convincing reasons with respect to the conclusions arrived. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted.
In the result the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge