Back
1994 Supreme(Bom) 147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.
Khurshed Sorabji Cooper ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The Bombay Electric Supply Transport Undertaking.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3584 of 1990, decided on 4-3-1994.
Advocates appeared :
J.J. Bhatt, for petitioner.
Phiroz Palkiwala, for the respondents.
The power to decide the correctness of an electricity meter and to estimate the energy consumption during a period of incorrect meter reading lies exclusively with the Electrical Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTION 26(1) AND (6) - INTERPRETATION - METER DEFECTIVE - ESTIMATE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION - POWER OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR - CONSUMER'S LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of electrical energy supplied by the respondent, challenged a supplementary bill and a notice of disconnection issued by the respondent. The dispute arose due to a defective meter installed by the respondent, which resulted in an incorrect recording of energy consumption. The respondent estimated the energy consumption for a period of 3½ years and raised a supplementary demand without referring the matter to an Electrical Inspector as required under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent's action of estimating the energy consumption and raising a supplementary demand without following the procedure laid down in section 26(6) was not permissible. The court emphasized that the power to decide the correctness of the meter and to estimate the energy consumption lies exclusively with the Electrical Inspector.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was entitled to estimate the energy consumption and raise a supplementary demand without referring the matter to an Electrical Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910? 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay the supplementary demand raised by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted sections 26(1) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, and held that: 1. A correct meter must be supplied by the licensee, and any dispute regarding the correctness of the meter must be decided by an Electrical Inspector. 2. The Electrical Inspector has the exclusive power to estimate the energy consumption during the period when the meter was found to be incorrect, but such estimation is limited to a period not exceeding six months. 3. In the absence of a finding by the Electrical Inspector that the meter was incorrect, the register of the meter is conclusive proof of the amount of energy consumed, except in cases of fraud.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned letter, supplementary bill, and notice issued by the respondent. However, considering the long lapse of time and to avoid further litigation, the court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000 to the respondent as a full and final settlement of the claim.
2. Mr. J.J. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being supplied with a meter, the amount of energy supplied to him can be ascertained only by means of the said meter. If any difference or dispute can be decided only by an Electrical Inspector and not by the licenseee itself as has been done in this case. Counsel further submits that even in a case where where the mater is found to be defective by the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of section 26 of the Act, the estimate of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer is restricted to a period not exceeding six months. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the respondent has estimated the supply of energy to the petitioner for a period of about 3½ years. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that sub-section (6) is attractedonly if a difference or dispute arises as to the correctness of the matter.It does not apply to a case where the licensee finds that the meter is not correct and no dispute is raused by the consumer in regard to such a finding.
3. I have considered the rival submissions. On the face of the clear provision contained in sub- sections (1) and (6) of section 26 of the Act, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that these sub-sections do not apply to a case where the meter is found to be incorrect by the licensee. This submission, in my opinion, goes counter to the clear language of sub-sections (1) and (6) if section 26 of the Act. section 26(1) provides:
(1) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter. and the licensee shall,if required by the consumer,cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter. (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from a reading of the above provision that a correct meter has to be supplied by the licensee.
Sub-section (6) deals with a contingency when any difference or dispute arises in regard to the correctness of the meter referred to in sub-section (1). It says :
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied
