IMPORTANT POINT
Maximum demand indicator/meter (MDI meter) can be safely relied upon for determining the excess quantity of load said to have been availed of by a consumer over and above the contracted load.

Headnote:Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Section 26-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Industrial power-Agreement for supply of energy on a contracted load agreement in terms of unit meter reading-Installation of maximum demand indicator/meter (MDI meter)-Demand of payment of an additional sum on basis of MDI meter installed-Challenged as unjustified alleged there was no provision in the agreement for installation of MDI meter-Appellants also disputing accuracy of recording by device of MDI meter-Whether MDI meter can be relied upon as the basis for investigating and determining the excess quantity of load said to have been availed of by a consumer over and above the contracted load-(Yes)-Agreement for supply between parties is inclusive of and also subject to provisions of the Act.
       Held : The provisions contained in sub-Section (7) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 envisage the installation of additional meters and checking apparatus, in addition to the meter for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied and quantity consumed. By and large it seems to be that the utility of MDI meter to record effectively and correctly the drawal of power at a continuous block period of 30 minutes in a month by a consumer has come stay as a reasonably safe method with due credibility and recognition in the field and appears to be in vogue even at global level. The question as to whether it can also safely be relied upon as the basis for investigating and determining the excess quantity of load said to have been availed of by a consumer over and above the contracted load as per the agreement is concerned, in our view admits of no doubt and we could find no reasonable or tenable and valid objection to exist so far as its relevance, utility and purpose of determination as well. If the reading by such a device installed could provide a sound basis and yardstick as accepted by this Court in the decision noticed supra for adjudging liability to pay the maximum demand charges/minimum monthly charge, it should in our view be considered to be equally efficacious for the purpose on hand also in adjudging the issue as to whether the consumer has at any given point of time, in contravention of the agreement with the Board, availed and drawn electricity in excess of the contracted load. (Para 17)
       The agreements entered into with the Board by the consumers like the appellants make mention in respect of particulars relating to electric supply, the maximum demand of the consumer in terms of H.P., in addition to giving the connected load, alongside. The actual consumption of energy during the relevant period unit wise also go to indicate that with the normal utilization of the contracted load, it would not have been possible for the mills of the appellants concerned to consume the number of units actually consumed and this circumstance also seems to strongly support the stand of the respondent-Board. The agreement for supply between parties is inclusive of and also subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and notifications, Rules, Regulations framed thereunder as well as the general conditions for supply of electrical energy made by the Board and the amendments made to all such, from time to time. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted.

2. The above batch of appeals involves identical questions of law for consideration on almost similar factual background and as such are dealt with together.

C.A.No. ......./2003 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2123/2000]

3. The appellant in this appeal has established a steel re-rolling Mill and is engaged in re-rolling of iron steel. Being a consumer of electric energy for the purpose, the appellant entered into an agreement dated 24.12.92 with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short "Board") for supply of energy on a contracted load agreement of 150 H.P. Low Tension A/C 400 volts industrial power at the rate of Rs.1.10 per unit in terms of the unit meter reading subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. It is stated that on 18.2.94 the tariff relating to the supply of Low Tension energy has been enhanced to Rs.2.25 per unit for all units which consumed with minimum charges of 60 units per month or part thereof of the contracted load. A meter to measure and record the consumption was installed at the premises in terms of the requirement of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the terms of the agreement entered into with the Board. The appellant claims that the bills prepared according to the meter readings in the unit meter located in the premises in question was being regularly paid without default and that the working of the meter was also being regularly checked from time to time by the officials of the Board and that at no time there was any complaint regarding the using of any machinery to exceed the contracted load of 150 H.P. The grievance of the appellant was with reference to the installation what is called as maximum demand indicator/meter for short (MDI meter), though there was no provision in the agreement enabling them to do so. The MDI meter is said to be a device to measure the maximum demand at a particular half an hour cycle of running the machinery in the factory, meaning thereby it measures the maximum demand of electric energy in a cycle of half an hour and not either the actual consumption of electricity or the horse power of motors or any other electrical equipment installed for use. According to the appellant though electricity actually consumed is recorded in the energy meter, the MDI meter showed higher amperage. It is further stated that though the total contracted load of machinery in the factory of the appellant has been certified to be 147.5 H.P. and not in excess of the contracted load capacity of 150 H.P. the Board, according to the appellant, on 12.8.94 arbitrarily worked out the working load capacity of the machinery as 236 B.H.P. on their own and on the basis of the MDI meter reading for the months of March 94 to June 94 and on that basis demanded the payment of an additional sum of Rs.75,825/-. On threat of disconnection of supply the said amount was said to have been paid to avoid any inconvenience resulting from such disconnection. When representations in this regard with the authorities did not bring forth any positive results, the appellant filed W.P.No.876 of 1995 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, seeking to quash the bills raised for an additional demand of the nature noticed above and also prayed for restraining the Board from raising such bills in future on the basis of the MDI meter installed in the premises.

4. The Board opposed the claim contending not only that the installation of such a meter was permissible and the course of action taken by them on the basis of the results of the MDI meter reading raising further demand in respect of utilization of the excess load over and above the contracted load capacity were legal and proper and that the meter readings relating to all these were said to be either in the presence of a responsible representative of the appellant and that no exception could be taken either to the correctness of the readings recorded or the legality and propriety of the ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 774

IMPORTANT POINTMaximum demand indicator/meter (MDI meter) can be safely relied upon for determining the excess quantity of load said to have been availed of by a consumer over and above the contracted load.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Maximum demand indicator/meter (MDI meter) can be safely relied upon for determining the excess quantity of load said to have been availed of by a consumer over and above the contracted load.