Electricity distribution companies must follow the procedures prescribed by the WBERC Regulations and the Electricity Act, 2003, when alleging that a consumer's electricity meter is defective and when generating rectified outstanding bills.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, a rice mill, is a consumer under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL). Although the petitioner has paid all electricity bills on a regular basis, on March 5, 2018, the WBSEDCL intimated the petitioner that the bills for the month of November, 2017, December, 2017 and January, 2018 were wrongly generated due to alleged defective Potential Transformer (PT) circuit developed on and from November 3, 2017, resulting in partial demand as per consumption in the meter during the said period. The WBSEDCL demanded that the dues outstanding for the said period of three months amounted to Rs. 17, 03, 072/-.

2. The petitioner rebutted such claim by a reply dated March 9, 2018. However, subsequent disconnection notices were sent to the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of such alleged outstanding dues. This prompted the petitioner to prefer the instant challenge against the alleged rectified outstanding bill.

3. The petitioner disputes the allegation that the meter in question was defective at any point of time. It is argued that in the event the circuit/meter was defective, there was no justification for the WBSEDCL to charge outstanding amounts for the period from November 2017 to January 2017 but omitting the months of February 2018 and March 2018 while raising the revised bill, although the defective meter was alleged to be replaced only in April, 2010.

4. It is further submitted that the WBSEDCL never inspected the meter for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was actually defective and that the alleged replacement of the same by the WBSEDCL was not done with any notice to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that intimation is required to be given to the consumer in case a defective meter/circuit is changed in terms of clauses 3.8.3 and 3.6.1 of Regulation 55 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, “the WBERC”). Such provisions were not complied with in the present case.

6. From August 2017 onwards, there was a flood in the area, due to which the paddy used for the purpose of the rice mill rotted. As such, during the period in question, rice production took a toll, resulting in less consumption of electricity than the corresponding months of the previous year and/or the previous months. However, such fact was not considered by the WBSEDCL in arbitrarily coming to the conclusion that the meter reading for such periodwas faulty.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next cites Clause 11.1 of Regulation 57 of the WBERC, which specifically provides for the procedure in case of meters being detected to be defective.In such case, the distribution licensee has to install a testing meter for a particular period for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of the meter, which has not been done in the present case.

8. Learned counsel also relies on the Draft (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 framed by the Ministry of Power, Government of Indiaand published on September 9, 2020. Rule 7 thereof provides for testing of meters, if found to be defective.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next cites certain judgements in support of his contention that the due procedure in such cases was not conformed to by the WBSEDCL.

10. First, learned counsel cites AIR 1985 MP 70 (Smt. Basantibai v. MP Electricity Board, Indore and Ors.) where a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when a difference or dispute arises regarding whether an electricity meter was defective, the same has to be referred to the Electrical Inspector.

11. Learned counsel next relies on a Single Judge-Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, reported at 2008 (103) DRJ 107(Vinod Kumar Jain v. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.) where in case of the dispute the High Court directed the meter to be tested.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on Nirmala Metal Industries v. KSEB [2006 (3) KLT 465]. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held th