Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The Ombudsman and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 157 of 2012, CAN No. 1 of 2014 (Old No. CAN 4944 of 2014)
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Electricity - Writ Petition - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 57; Regulations of 2010, Clause 11 - The court analyzed the standards of performance for licensees and the obligations regarding faulty meters, concluding that the licensee acted within its rights in raising a supplementary bill despite delays in meter replacement.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges an Ombudsman order quashing a supplementary electricity bill raised by the licensee against a consumer due to a faulty potential transformer (P.T) that was not replaced in a timely manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the licensee's actions in raising the supplementary bill were justified under the terms of the agreement, despite the Ombudsman's ruling that the bill was faulty due to the lack of communication regarding the P.T's malfunction.
Issues: Whether the licensee was justified in raising a supplementary bill despite the delay in replacing the faulty P.T and the Ombudsman's findings regarding the lack of communication to the consumer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the licensee's right to raise a supplementary bill was valid under the agreement, and the Ombudsman erred in disregarding the evidence of the faulty P.T and the licensee's compliance with the agreement terms.
Result: The court set aside the Ombudsman's order and revived the supplementary bill for Rs. 27,86,705, directing the consumer to pay in installments.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 18.07.2011 as passed by the Ombudsman, West Bengal in GR Case No. W-495K of 2010 at the instance of the writ petitioner/WBSEDCL who is a licensee as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act’ in short). By the said order the Ombudsman quashed a bill dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.27,39,222/- as raised by the said licensee upon the respondent no. 3/firm who is a consumer under Section 2(15) of the said Act.
2. Admittedly pursuant to an agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered by and between the licensee and the consumer, the licensee had agreed to supply high voltage electricity to the respondent no. 3/consumer which deals with processing and dyeing of hosiery cloths. It is the case of the petitioner that electric connection was given at the premises of the respondent no. 3/consumer on 28.04.2009. Subsequently during inspection the technical representative of the licensee/writ petitioner noticed mismatch in the meter reading system and on 01.06.2009 in course of inspection defect was detected in the potential transformer (‘P.T’ in short).
3. According to the writ petitioner since the said P.T was under warranty the said P.T was taken out and subsequently the same was sent to the manufacturer and on 16.02.2010 the manufacturer replaced the said P.T which was again reinstalled in the premises of the respondent no. 3/consumer on 26.02.2010.
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in between 01.06.2009 to 26.02.2010 the writ petitioner /licensee had to raise provisional bill upon the respondent no. 3/consumer and after installation of the said P.T, on 20.08.2010 the writ petitioner/licensee raised a supplementary bill to the tune of Rs.27,39,422/- for the period May, 2009 to March, 2010 on the basis of average consumption succeeding three months after the reinstallation of the P.T. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said supplementary bill was raised as per the terms of the agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered into by and between the writ petitioner/licensee and the respondent no. 3/consumer.
5. The respondent no. 3/consumer felt aggrieved with the raising of such bill dated 20.08.2010 for the sum of Rs. 27,39,222/- and they approached the Grievance Redressal Office of the writ petitioner. According to the respondent no. 3/consumer its grievance was not properly addressed for which he approached the Ombudsman which passed an order dated 18.07.2011 which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.
6. In course of hearing Mr. Panja, learned advocate for the writ petitioner/licensee at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.37 to 40 being Annexures ‘P’, ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ of the writ petition. It is submitted that from the aforesaid annexure being the copy of the meter card and the inspection report respectively it would reveal that the reading of the meter was found to be irregular and from the inspection report dated 01.06.2009 it would reveal that the P.T connected with the meter of the respondent no. 3 was found not functioning. Drawing attention to page nos. 41 and 42 of the writ petition it is further argued by Mr. Panja that from the communication of letters between the officials of the writ petitioner/licensee it would reveal that the said P.T was within the warranty which is why a decision was taken for sending the same to the manufacturer for its repairing and/or replacement. Drawing attention to page nos. 46 to 56 it is submitted that during the period between the withdrawal of P.T from the meter of the respondent no. 3 and till the date of reinstallation of the same in the meter provisional bill was raised upon the respondent no. 3/consumer which have been duly paid.
7. At this juncture Mr. Panja drawing attention to Clause 11 (3) of the agreement submits that the supplementary bill for Rs.27,39,222/- was drawn in accordance with the provisions of the said cla
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 whe....
The court established that the billing for defective meters must comply with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant regulations, and upheld the decisions of the statutory forums....
A mistake or bona fide error can justify a supplementary bill, and the prospective loss to be suffered due to belated billing is not a relevant factor.
Point of law: Electricity - Disputed factual aspects cannot be and should not be gone into in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. We are therefore of t....
The Electricity Board must refer disputes regarding defective meters to the Electrical Inspector before raising supplementary bills, as mandated by S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
The Ombudsman erred in failing to recognize the commercial relationship between the parties, which affected the determination of electricity tariff under the Electricity Act.
The main legal point established is the application of the multiplying factor in electricity billing and the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
