ORAL JUDGMENT :- The First and the Second respondents are owners of a factory in which ice cream is manufactured at 131 and 138, C.P. Tank Road, Mumbai 400 004. Initially the unit of the aforesaid consumers was supplied with electricity through two meters being meter Nos. L 770872 and E 992866. The applicable tariff under which the consumers were billed was the industrial GP-1 tariff. On 15th January, 2000 the consumers in the present case made an application for the installation of an electronic meter and for change of the tariff from GP-1 to GP-2 on the ground that the existing consumption which was more than 3000 units per month was likely to increase. On 19th January, 2000 the two existing conventional meters were replaced by an electronic meter bearing No. P 991370. The tariff was changed from GP-1 to GP-2. Between 19th January, 2000 and 27th May, 2000 the readings of the new electronic meter were not taken by the petitioner or its concerned officials. The explanation of the petitioner is that the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Department keeps a record of meters in consumption and it is only after a new meter is recorded with the EDP Department that appropriate cards with new meter numbers are issued to the meter readers. This process takes a few months to be completed. Whatever be the explanation, the factual position is that no meter reading was taken between January and May, 2000. On 27th May, 2000 a site inspection was carried out at which it was revealed that the electronic meter was found to have stopped and there was no display thereon. The electronic meter was replaced on the same day by another electronic meter bearing No. F 980673. The consumers were informed prior to taking the said action. The replaced meter has thereafter functioned satisfactorily.

2. Between the months of January and May, 2000, in the absence of a meter reading, the consumers were billed on an assumed basis. The billing was on the following basis.

Month Units Billed

January, 2000 325

February, 2000 350

March, 2000 330

April, 2000 330

May, 2000 330

3. The case of the petitioner is that during the immediately preceding period of 341 days prior to the installation of an electronic meter on 19th January, 2000, the average monthly consumption recorded on the conventional meters was 1992 kwh units. Similarly, when a new electronic meter was installed on 27th May, 2000 (P 980673) in replacement of P 991370, the average monthly consumption during the period of 370 days subsequent to the installation of the meter worked out to 3621 kwh units.

4. A supplementary bill was raised by the petitioner for the period from 19th January, 2000 to 27th May, 2000 on the basis of the average taken on 3621 kwh units per month. This average as noted above was the average monthly consumption recorded on the new meter, P 980673 between the period 27th May, 2000 and 1st June, 2001. By the supplementary bill a demand of Rs. 78,187.17 was raised on the consumers and debited to the account in the bill for the month of April, 2004.

5. The consumers in the present case approached the Consumer Grievance Reddressal Forum which has been constituted under the provisions of section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Forum passed an order (Exhibit A) directing the petitioner to restrict the amendment of the bill to a period of three months based upon an average to be taken of the period prior to the disputed period. In holding so, the Forum relied upon a directive of the Maharashtra Regulatory Energy Commission dated 23rd February, 2005. The consumers thereupon moved the Third respondent, who is the Ombudsman appointed under section 42(6) of the Electricity Act 2003 read with Rule 272. The Ombudsman by an order dated 24th August, 2005 set aside the order of the Grievance Redressal Forum and came to the conclusion that the Undertaking was not justified in raising a supplementary bill. The Ombudsman held that sinc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document