Unilateral billing by the Electricity Board is unsustainable without resolving meter disputes through an Electrical Inspector.

1 Appellant is the petitioner in O. P. 3051 of 1994. He is a consumer of electrical energy from the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was served with bills for the period August 1993 to January 1994 for Rs. 8,387/-. He made enquiries with the respondents regarding the bill and disputed it. No definite reply was given. Appellant challenged Ext. P2 bill on the ground that the energy recorded in the meter was not proper.

2 Contention of the respondents is that on inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad it was found that 'B' phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it on account of faulty connection and hence the appellant was charged 50% of the recorded consumption in addition "from June, 1993 onwards as provided in Clause.42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electric Energy framed by the Board and so the supplementary bill issued to him is proper.

3 Learned Single Judge held that though there was no defect in the meter, the connection given to the appellant was faulty. Contention of the respondents that on inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, it was found that 'B' phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it on the account of faulty connection and this fault was rectified and thereafter the current consumption increased by almost 1/3rd and it was on that basis the supplementary bill was issued was accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge further held that under S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, a reference could be made to the Electrical Inspector only when a dispute arises as to whether any meter is correct or not and if there was faulty connection and one phase was not working, owing to that fact, it cannot be said that there was mistake in the meter and the mistake if any should be attributed to the faulty connection. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards Ext. P2 bill within a month and observed that he may file appeal against Ext. P2 within a period of three weeks.

4 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Anti Power Theft Squad who have conducted inspection in the premises of the appellant found that one phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it owing to some defect and in fact directed the third respondent to replace the meter and hence it cannot be held that the meter was not defective. Appellant's counsel further contended that as the meter was replaced as per the directions of the Anti Power Theft Squad it is apparent that it was defective and hence the contention of the respondents otherwise is totally untenable.

5 S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 reads :
"Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-s.(1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:
Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention to do so."
In a case where an electrical meter is not registering Correct consumption of energy on account of the defectiveness in the wiring, S.26(6) cannot be attracted. In a case where only the meter is defective, the question of arbitration by the electrical Inspector would arise. In a case where it is found out that there is defective wiring, who was responsible for the same is not relevant under S.26(6). In other words, in cases where there is d