The accuracy of meters under the General Purpose Tariff and the dispute resolution process under the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004 were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This writ appeal by the Executive Engineer (Electrical) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (CESU), Bhubaneswar Electrical Division, Khurda is directed against the order dated 16th December, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.26788 of 2013 filed by the Appellant.

2. The above writ petition had been filed by the Appellant to challenge the order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by the learned Ombudsman, CESU in Consumer Representation Case No.OM(1)-28 of 2013 reversing an order dated 4th March, 2013 passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF), Bhubaneswar in C.C. Case No.3 of 2013.

3. The background facts are that the Respondent is a consumer of the Appellant under General Purpose Tariff having a contract demand (CD) of 60 KW load. An agreement was entered into by the Respondent with the Appellant on 22nd July, 2010 and a static meter was installed. At the time of initial power supply, a tested new meter was installed as provided under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act'). According to the Appellant, the meter worked well to the satisfaction of everyone.

4. A dispute arose between the parties on 4th December, 2012 when a routine checkup was conducted by the Meter Relay Test Department of the Appellant in the premises of the Respondent. The checkup of the meter was undertaken in terms of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004 (hereafter the 2004 Code). It was observed by the team of experts that the Y-phase voltage in the meter showed 0' volt and, therefore, it was concluded that the said meter was not sensing Y-phase Power Transformer supply. It was further concluded that the meter was recording 1/3rd less of the actual consumption.

5. A dump report of the meter was undertaken and it was suggested that a new LTCT meter must be installed. It was claimed that the Respondent was present throughout this exercise and appended his signature on the report of the experts, which was converted into a verification report.

6. After the Testing Report dated 4th December, 2012 was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who in turn passed it on to the Deputy General Manager, the Executive Engineer (EE) made a calculation of the escape energy loss and called upon the Respondent to pay Rs.4,85,477/- for the additional bill, failing which he would have to face disconnection.

7. Then, the Respondent filed a representation before the EE for revision of the bill stating that non-recording of Y-phase Power Transformer was a deliberate attempt for collecting revenue and, therefore, the demand was barred by limitation. The Respondent suggested that the meter be tested at a Standard Testing Laboratory (STL) at Bhubaneswar, the cost of which would be borne by the Appellant.

8. It is claimed that some of the claims of the Respondent were acceded to and the bill was revised by requiring the Respondent to make a deposit of Rs.2,07,202.25 as well as testing fee for the test of the meter.

9. The Respondent then approached the GRF challenging the additional bill served on him. The GRF by the order dated 4th March, 2013 directed the Appellant to revise the additional energy bill after testing the meter in the STL, Bhubaneswar. It was directed that if the meter is found correct for the revision of the bill from 22nd July, 2010 to November 2012, it shall be done on the basis of the escaped units. In case the meter is defective, the demand will be revised by relying on the provisions of Regulation-97 of the 2004 Code.

10. The Respondent then approached the Ombudsman challenging the order of the GRF. The Ombudsman has by the impugned order dated 12th June, 2013 differed from the findings of the GRF and held that if the meter was found okay after the testing by the STL then the question of billing of additional units at the rate of extra 1/3rd over and above the actual consumption, would not arise. On the other hand, if the meter wa