A consumer's failure to adequately follow-up on complaints undermines claims of malafides in disputes regarding electricity meter tampering.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6, P8 and P14 since they are issued against the provisions of the Electricity Act , 2003 and in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench reported in K.S.E.B. V. Najeeb (2005 (1) K.L.T. 406) and also seeks to quash Exts.P5, P6, P8 and P14 as they are issued with malafides and irrelevant considerations. The further prayer is not to compel the petitioner to pay the amount shown in Ext.P6 bill.

2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a hotel where there are 74 rooms. It is his further case that only ten rooms are inhabitable and only a Dhaba restaurant is functioning in the hotel. The hotel is having 3 phase connection. It is his case that since the hotel is running at a loss from the very beginning, on his request, the electricity tariff was changed from Deemed HT to LT VII(A) with effect from 22.1.2002. The electric meter of the hotel was not functioning properly. Complaints were made as Exts.P1 to P3. During September 2004, three staffs from the office of the Assistant Engineer came to the hotel to replace the old electric meter. They failed in their attempt since in the trial run the new meter was also not found working WPC.6508/2006. 2 properly. In that attempt, they had to open the meter box several times and at last they left the hotel by re-fixing the old one again. The Electrician of the hotel noted that the cover of the meter was badly damaged and the seal was also broken. This was brought to the notice of the office of the Assistant Engineer over phone. Finding no response, a written representation, Ext.P4, dated 25.9.2004 was given. For nine months there were no steps taken. On 30.6.2005 the officials from the second respondent inspected the hotel at 1 p.m. Petitioner was away. The Manager was also not present and the officials prepared a mahazar, which along with the notice is produced as Ext.P5. Supply was disconnected alleging tampering of meter. Ext.P6 bill was issued . This court was approached and this court directed to file objections. By Ext.P8, objections came to be overruled. Petitioner preferred appeal, which in turn proved unsuccessful. Ext.P13 is the argument note and Ext.P14 is the order on the appeal. It is pointed out that after the new meter was installed, the bill issued to the hotel was almost the same or less than the electricity bill issued before the second respondent conducted the inspection. In this context Exts.P10 to P12 bills are seen produced. In Ext.P14, which is an order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, after referring to the contentions, it is stated as follows:

WPC.6508/2006. 3 “In the above circumstances, the undersigned came to the conclusion as follows: The contention of the petitioner is that the staff deputed from the office of Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kadappakada caused damage is immaterial, they have not any alleged motive. The consumers version of the employees of Electrical Section, Kadappakkada wee tried to damage the meter installed in the premises does not stand. Back assessment was made only for the unrecorded portion of the energy actually consumed by the consumer and the calculation of above consumption was made scientifically. Since the APTS is an expert team in assessing the connected load, the undersigned feel that there is no need to revise the demand assessed by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kadappakkada. Hence the undersigned, hereby ordered that the assessment made by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kadappakkada as per the instruction of APTS is according to rules and is to be remitted by consumer.”

3. Counter affidavit is filed inter alia stating as follows:

“The monthly consumption shown in the meter does not match with the total connected load installed in the hotel. The consolidated connected load had been found to be 88 KW on physical verification conducted by the APTS on 30.6.2005. the monthly consumption sh