Back
Quashes ₹5 Crore , Clarifying Paths for Meter Disputes
In a significant ruling for industrial consumers, the of Andhra Pradesh has quashed a massive ₹5.27 crore imposed on by the . Justice Ninala Jayasurya ruled that the distribution company acted without by arbitrarily assessing the electricity consumption after discovering faulty wiring, rather than adhering to .
A Rusted Wire and a Multi-Million Rupee Invoice
The dispute began in when RINL, a steel manufacturing giant, detected an unusual variance between its internal monitoring system and the meter records provided by EPDCL. Subsequent inspections revealed that the disparity was not due to a defective meter itself, but because of melted and corroded secondary circuit wires, which allowed rats and squirrels to infiltrate the box.
EPDCL responded by invoking Clause 22.3.3.3 of its Terms and Conditions of Supply , which allows the utility to assess consumption based on load factors when equipment is deemed "defective." This methodology resulted in a staggering back-billing notice of roughly ₹5.27 crore.
The Legal Tug-of-War
The central question before Justice Ninala Jayasurya was whether a utility company can unilaterally assess " " power usage without first engaging the statutory authority tasked with measuring such anomalies: the Electrical Inspector.
Counsel for RINL argued that the utility failed in its primary duty to maintain the equipment. More importantly, they contended that under Section 26(6) of the , any disagreement regarding must be resolved by an Electrical Inspector, not by the distribution company’s own internal audit mechanisms. EPDCL maintained that because the issue was external wiring and not the meter's internal functionality, the was unnecessary.
Precedent and Judicial Reasoning
The court leaned heavily on the set by the , particularly in . The emphasized that when a meter is running slow or recording incorrectly—regardless of the root cause—the law requires an objective assessment by an expert body.
"Where it is not possible to select a set of three months... the quantity of electricity supply shall be assessed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer... However, in the case of industrial consumers, due regard shall be given to the production figures,"
the
had argued. The court, however, found this approach fell short of the transparency required by law.
Key Observations
Justice Ninala Jayasurya’s judgment underscored the following critical points:
-
On the duty of the supplier:
"
, contemplates that the supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to him... are in a safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy."
-
On the role of the Electrical Inspector:
"The issue with regard to less recording of readings by a meter which is not otherwise defective and the assessment towards back billing amount falls within the purview of
under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act."
-
On the limits of utility discretion:
"Any assessment towards back billing on the basis of the procedure contemplated under the said clause [22.3.3.3] is illegal, not sustainable."
The Verdict and Its Impact
Quashing the demand, the court ordered that any amount already collected or adjusted from RINL must be refunded or credited back into their monthly bills.
This ruling serves as a vital safeguard for consumers against arbitrary "back-billing" practices. By strictly enforcing the necessity of an independent inspector’s inquiry, the decision ensures that utility companies cannot act as both judge and jury in financial disputes. For industrial giants and domestic users alike, the has reiterated that electricity billing remains a regulated process where takes precedence over internal utility policy.
