Antony Dominic, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C).26581/09 is the appellant. He is an LT consumer of the electricity supplied by the respondents. On 4.9.2007, there was an inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared which showed that in the meter, there was a negative error of 45.5% for the reason that a particular phase had been connected to the wrong terminal. Thereupon Ext.P2 demand notice was issued. The demand notice was challenged before the appellate authority, which confirmed the same by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, the appellant moved the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Ernakulam which also confirmed the demand by Ext.P6 order. The appellant then moved the State Electricity Ombudsman who also rejected his contention by Ext.P7 order. It was in such circumstances that the writ petition was filed.
2. Before the learned single Judge, the contention raised by the appellant was two fold. One was that this was a case where the meter was faulty and therefore, in the absence of reference to the Electrical Inspector, the respondents could not have unilaterally assessed the amounts due. The second contention raised was that even if the meter was not faulty, this was a case to which clause 19(2) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code applies and that the maximum period for which the demand could be made was six months and that instead, amounts demanded from the appellant was for a period of two years. Both the contentions were rejected by the learned single Judge and therefore this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the above contentions before us also. In so far as his plea that the meter was faulty and therefore, reference should have been made to the Electrical Inspector is concerned, answer to this is available in Ext.P1 mahazar prepared by the APTS on inspection of the appellant's premises. In that mahazar, it has been stated thus:
“¥ÄÞÏÄí Y, B phaseµ{ßæÜ çÕÞZçG¼á µÃfÈáµZ ÉøØíÉø¢ ÎÞùßÏÞÃí ÎàxV æ¿VÎßÈÜßW ¸¿ßMߺîßGáUÄí. ÎàxV æ¿VÎßÈÜßW Y,B phase µ{ßæÜ çÕÞZçG¼á µÃfÈáµ{ßW ÕK ĵøÞV ÎâÜÎÞÃí ÎàxV ÉøßçÖÞÇÈÏßW Y, B phase µ{ßW negative error µIÄí.”
4. Reading of the above shows that the negative error of the meter was due to the wrong connection of the terminals and not the fault of the meter. In such a situation, the meter cannot be said to be faulty justifying reference of the meter to the Electrical Inspector. In fact, this view has already been taken by this Court in the context of section 24(5) of the Electricity Act, 1910 in the judgment in Sibi K.Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2012 KLT SN 137].
5. clause 19(2) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 reads as follows:
“If licensee is unable to base a bill on meter reading due to its non-recording or malfunctioning, the Licensee shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month.”
6. Reading of the above clause itself show that this clause applies only in cases where the licensee is unable to raise bill on meter reading due to its non- recording or malfunctioning. In such a case, bill is to be issued to the consumer based on the previous six months' average consumption. Therefore, what this regulation provides is the basis on which the bill is to be raised and it does not provide that the amount to be demanded from the consumer shall be only for a period of six months as contended.
7. Counsel also contended that if so, the basis of the bill should be the average consumption of the previous six months. However, in the facts of this case, as rightly found by the learned single Judge, the relevant provision that is applicable is clause 24(5) of the Supply Code, which entitles the licensee to demand the actual amount that is assessed by it. Therefore, this plea raised by the counsel also deserves to be rejected.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, we clarify that the findings in this judgment will not preclude the appellant from approaching the competent authority among the respondents for waiver of the interest and we direct that if any such representation is made, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
kkb.
/True copy/ PS to Judge