Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45885
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
MUHAMMED HAROON P.P – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP(C)/29471/2022
DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT, B.PREMOD
Responsibilities for billing inaccuracies in electricity supply must be confined to 12 months limitation as per KSEB regulations, protecting consumers from overstated charges.
Headnote:
Electricity - Tariff Dispute - Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 Regulation List - The court interpreted Regulations 109, 113, and 152 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014, emphasizing the licensee's responsibility for metering accuracy and limiting back charges to 12 months under Regulation 152, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a bill raised by KSEB based on an incorrect multiplication factor in metering, claiming arrears amounting to Rs.7,17,602 for a period from April 2018 to September 2020 without fault on their part.
Issues: The main issues were the correctness of the multiplication factor applied in the billing and the applicability of limitation under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 regarding the collection of short charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the short collection of charges due to meter inaccuracies must adhere to the 12-month limitation as stipulated in Regulation 152 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, limiting KSEB's liability.
Final Decision: The demand was modified to a maximum of 12 months, and KSEB was directed to issue a revised bill.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is claiming to be a owner/proprietor of M/s Prestige Polymers, a small scale Chappal manufacturing situated at Kozhikode. Earlier, the establishment was under the Electrical Section, Feroke with consumer number 1166319009259 and then it was brought under the Areekkad Electrical Section with consumer No.1167899019163 having a connected load of 37KW with LT IV tariff.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the KSEB and seeking the recovery of the amount on account of the mistake in respect of multiplication factor. On 8.10.2020, Sub Engineer of respondent No.3, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical sub-division along with the overseer inspected the industrial premises of the petitioner and prepared a site mahazar and found there was no tampering of the meter which was functioning properly but the multiplication factor (MF) for calculating the energy charges was wrong as the CT used was with CT ratio of 200/5 with resultant MF as 40. Instead of taking multiplication factor as 40, the multiplication factor used for electrical bill was 20 and raised a bill of Rs.7,17,602/-, Ext.P2.
Petitioner approached the Assistant Engineer and protested to the demand raised in Ext.P2 but of no avail. An information under the RTI Act was sought vide application dated 5.2.2021 and 9.2.2021, Ext.P3 and P3(a). The reply Ext.P4 indicated that there was no fault of the petitioner in fact the system required upgradation as the CT should have been in the ratio of 100/5 rather than 200/5. On the basis of the information, petitioner preferred an O.P No.4/2021 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF- Northern Region). The CRRF vide order dated 19.1.2022 upheld the demand raised in Ext.P2. Against the aforementioned order, an appeal was preferred before the Electricity Ombudsman, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the averments made in the writ petitions has raised the following submissions:
3. Regulation 113 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code
2014 casts the responsibility on the licencee ie., KSEB regarding the accuracy of the meter. The meter was inspected and it was not suffering from any inherent mistake or over draw of the power than the sanctioned load or unauthorized load.
4. Regulation 152 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code
2014 empowers the Electricity Board to cure the anomalies detected at the premises of the consumer but the fact remains that there was no change in the purpose of use of electricity by the consumer. The inaccuracy in metering cannot be attributed to the petitioner except only to the licencee.
5. Regulation 109 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 provides that it shall be the responsibility of the officials of the licensee to install a proper meter with its accessories such as CT etc. and keep the records properly for the purpose of calculating the energy consumption and then the energy charges.
6. In the light of Section 56 with regard to limitation applicable in the collection of undervaluation amount from the petitioner will be illegal if the respondent to do so, because the alleged arrears became due as early as in April, 2018, much before the 2 year limitation period as provided in the Electricity Act, 2003 .
7. On the other hand, counsel representing the Electricity Board submitted that there would not have any difference that in cases of contract demand of 50KVA, as in the case of the petitioner, there is provisions to enhance the contract at any point of time. Even if the old CT is replaced with ratio 100/5A CT, there would not be any change in the consumption. In other words, whether it is 100/5A CT or 200/5A CT, only the actual consumption of the consumer was recorded and billed. The only fault was that the multiplication factor was mistakenly recorded as 20 instead of 40. It should have been 40 with effect from April 2018 and rightly so, the demand has been raised as Rs.7,17,602/-. By applying the provisions of Reg
