The licensee is entitled to recover undercharged amounts when meter under-recording is established through reliable technical evidence.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a consumer engaged in ice manufacturing under Consumer No. 1155304022245 with LT-IV A demand-based tariff at Electrical Section, Cheppad, challenges the orders of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter ‘CGRF’) dated 03.03.2022 and the State Electricity Ombudsman dated 20.06.2022, and the consequential demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022, issued by the 3^rd respondent, Assistant Engineer, Cheppad.

2. The petitioner asserts that the energy meter had been functioning properly and was regularly inspected and billed without arrears. On 14.09.2021, APTS, Alappuzha, conducted an inspection and alleged that the R-phase was recording 29.70% below the actual consumption. Based on this, a short assessment bill of Rs.96,147/- was issued pursuant to the demand notice dated 01.11.2021 under Section 45 of the Electricity Act , read with Regulation 134 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code (hereinafter ‘the Supply Code’).

3. The petitioner approached the CGRF challenging the said demand, and the Forum ordered that the short assessment be reassessed by revising the bills of 07.2021 and 08.2021 based on the average consumption computed from the three billing cycles after the replacement of the phase wire, i.e., from 10.2021. This was further challenged before the Ombudsman, and by order dated 20.06.2022, the Ombudsman affirmed the decision of the CGRF by following the very same reasoning. Consequent to the order of the ombudsman, the 3rd respondent issued a Demand cum disconnection notice dated 25.06.2022 with a revised bill for payment of Rs. 99,293/-.

4. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 mahazar merely records sludge formation at the R-phase terminal and voltage of 30.4 V in R-phase against 234 V and 230 V in the other phases, and that the Sub Engineer had no authority to unilaterally determine 29.70% under-recording since Regulation 18(2) of the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations , 2016 permits meter accuracy testing only through NABL-accredited laboratories or mobile testing units. It is urged that Ext.P1 contains no reference to the downloading of data by APTS, yet the assessment is admittedly based on such extraneous material. Exts.P2 to P5 show the meter status as “working” in July, August, and September 2021; hence, any defect could only have arisen between 01.09.2021 and 14.09.2021, and the defect was rectified on the very day of inspection. The petitioner submits that the anomaly noted in Ext.P1 is a “meter defect” within the meaning of Regulation 2(57) of the Supply Code, and therefore, assessment could only be undertaken under Regulation 125, which mandates billing based on the average of the three preceding billing cycles and limits assessment to two cycles.

5. The petitioner further contends that Ext.P10 bill dated

01.11.2021, issued after Ext.P9 objection to the demand notice, violates the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ext.P11 KSEB Circular dated 25.02.2016 for handling meter-defect cases, and that the failure to record tamper-data in the mahazar demonstrates procedural irregularity. It is argued that Ext.P13 order of the CGRF, directing that the short assessment be revised by reassessing the bills for July and August 2021 based on the average consumption for the three billing cycles after rectification, i.e., from 10/2021, adopts a methodology not contemplated under Regulation 125 or Rule 7(3) of the Electricity Rules, 2005, and is therefore unsustainable. The Ombudsman, by Ext.P15 order dated 20.06.2022, is stated to have repeated the same error by mechanically affirming the Forum’s reasoning without considering the prior billing-