A utility must refund excess charges from faulty meter readings as per relevant regulations limiting billing periods.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the KSEB, challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman, in an appeal preferred by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent is having a 3-phase domestic service connection bearing Consumer No.11898 under the Electrical Section, Kaloor, Ernakulam. The petitioner had complained on 13.04.2010 that there was an abnormal sound from the energy meter, that the meter was working at an excessively fast rate, even when the meter was switched off. The consumption recorded in the metre was more than 20000 units, and the matter was reported to the Section Office in writing on the same day.

3. The consumer approached the Central Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) alleging that he was charged for an average of 280 units for a long period, without replacing the meter. The petitioners also issued a short assessment bill dated 27.12.2013 for Rs.5506/- by increasing the above average to 344 units for the above period, in which the meter was faulty. The Board later cancelled the short assessment bill. The petitioner claimed a refund of the excess amount billed for 37 bills issued during the time the meter was faulty. The meter rent was also charged for the above period.

4. The CGRF, after hearing both sides, found that the disputed meter was replaced only on 25.05.2016 and that the present consumption was only around 120 units. A physical inspection was also carried out by the Chairperson. Accordingly, the CGRF directed the Board to revise all the bills from 4/2010 based on an average consumption of the 3 billing cycles after installation of the new meter. It directed the excess amount to be refunded to the respondent herein within one month. The Board was also directed to refund the meter rent collected from the respondent herein during the period when the meter was faulty.

5. The consumer was not fully satisfied with the order of the CGRF and filed an appeal before the Ombudsman. He prayed for revising all the bills from 4/2010 till 25.05.2016 based on the fixed/minimum charges paid as per the tariff, and also to refund the excess amount and meter rent collected with interest at the rate of 16% per annum.

6. The Ombudsman, after hearing both sides and on the admitted facts stated above, found that though the consumer had reported that the meter was faulty from 04/2010, the same was replaced only on 25.05.2016. It was also noticed that the Board had to test the meter once every five years. Placing reliance on Regulation 125 of the Supply Code, 2014 , it was found that the charges based on the average consumption shall be levied only for a maximum period of two billing cycles during which time the licensee shall replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter. Since the Board did not do so, the Ombudsman varied the order of the CGRF, and held that the charging during the meter faulted period based on the average consumption shall be limited for a maximum period of two billing cycles from 4/2010 as per Regulation 125(2) of the . It also made clear that the consumer was liable for making payment of fixed/minimum charges for the remaining period up to 5/2016 as per the applicable tariff in force. The excess amount collected from the consumer by way of energy charges and meter rent during the meter faulty period shall be refunded with interest as per Regulation 134(3) of . This order is challenged by the Board.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after noticing the undisputed fact that though the consumer herein complained in