Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
SENTHIL – Appellant
Versus
THE OFFICE OF THE TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN – Respondent
W.P.No.36114 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.36114 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Electricity Law - Supply Code / Consumer Disputes
Act Referred
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Supply Code: Reg.11(1), Reg.11(2), Reg.11(5)
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) Supply Code - Regulation 11(2) and 11(5) - Assessment of billing where meter is defective - Regulation 11(2) provides for average of preceding four months provided conditions of use were not different - Regulation 11(5) provides for assessment based on any consecutive four months in preceding twelve months when conditions were similar if conditions were different - When there is difference in consumption even within the preceding four months, the assessing authority must apply Regulation 11(5) rather than 11(2) - Respondents cannot choose a regulation merely because it is beneficial to them. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Scope of interference with orders of Electricity Ombudsman - Where the Ombudsman failed to consider the correct regulation, the High Court can quash and remand for reassessment.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, running a manufacturing unit producing HDPE pipes, had a defective meter during November 2019 to January 2020. The meter was replaced in February 2020. The respondents issued a demand based on average consumption of preceding four months (June to September 2019) under Regulation 11(2) of the Supply Code. The petitioner contended that his business is cyclical with higher demand in summer and lower in monsoon, and that the assessment should have been under Regulation 11(5) because conditions of use were different. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition limited to the issue of applicability of Regulation 11(5).
Findings of Court:
The Court examined the consumer ledger and found that there was a difference in consumption even among the four months preceding the disputed period (June to September 2019). Therefore, the condition for application of Regulation 11(2) - i.e., that conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said four months were not different from those which prevailed during the period in question - was not satisfied. Consequently, the respondents ought to have followed the procedure under Regulation 11(5) by taking any consecutive four months in the preceding twelve months when conditions were similar. The Ombudsman's order was quashed and the matter remanded to the second respondent for reassessment under Regulation 11(5) within one month.
Issues: Whether the assessment of electricity consumption for a defective meter period should be made under Regulation 11(2) or Regulation 11(5) of the TNERC Supply Code when there is a difference in consumption even in the preceding four months.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a difference in consumption pattern within the four months preceding the defective period, the assessing authority cannot rely on Regulation 11(2) which requires that conditions were not different. Instead, the assessment must be done under Regulation 11(5) which provides for a flexible approach by taking a period of similar working conditions from the preceding twelve months. The authority cannot adopt a regulation merely because it is beneficial to them; the purpose of assessment is to take into account the entire aspects.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed. Matter remanded to the second respondent for reassessment under Regulation 11(5) within one month. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Prabu
For the Respondents: L.Jai Venkatesh
ORDER
Challenging the Award of the 1st respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, dated 22.08.2024, in Appeal No.45 of 2024, rejecting the request of the petitioner to reassess the electricity consumption during the disputed period, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.The petitioner is running a manufacturing unit specialising in the production of HDPE Pipes in the name of M/s.Shree Ram Pipes in Vadaperumbakkam, Madhavaram, Chennai. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the nature of the business is cyclical with higher demand during summer season and lower demand during the monsoon season. During the disputed period of November, 2019 to January, 2020, the petitioner’s electricity unit meter was defective and the said fact has been confirmed by a Meter Relay Test (MRT) which proved the defect and indicated that no data regarding consumption could be recovered. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,39,664/- based on previous month charges as demanded by the 2nd respondent for the defective months during the said period. Subsequently, a demand notice was issued by the respondents demanding a sum of Rs.1,55,702/- based on Regulation 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) Supply Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Supply Code” for brevity). According to the petitioner, as the business is cyclical and the demand is higher only during pre-monsoon, the assessment ought to have been made by invoking Regulation 11(5) instead of Regulation 11(2) of the Supply Code. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (TNCGRF) and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent/Electricity Ombudsman. However, the appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.08.2024. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.Though various aspects have been raised and decided before the Ombudsman, the writ petitioner has confined his submissions before this Court only with regard to re-assessment invoking Regulation 11(5) instead of Regulation 11(2) of the Supply Code.
4.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. The main contention of the 4th respondent is that, during the period of four months preceding to the period in question, there was no difference in consumption pattern and it remained consistent throughout the year, even during the period of the defective meter. The 4th respondent has adverted to Regulation 11 of the Supply Code which reads as follows :
“Regulation 11 : Assessment of billing in cases where the meter is defective – (1) where the meter fixed is found to be defective or burnt or to have ceased to function and no theft of energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when the mater was defective, shall be assessed based on the data downloaded through CMRI from the defective meter and scrutiny of those data, load curve, etc., besides taking into consideration of site condition to corroborate the assessment so made. Wherever the data could not be downloaded, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when the meter was defective, shall be assessed as mentioned hereunder.
(2) The quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question shall be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the preceding four months in respect of both High Tension service connections and Low Tension service connections provided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said four months were not different from those which prevailed during the period in question.”
According to the respondents, the consumption pattern of the petitioner premises remained consistent throughout the year. Since the meter of the petitioner premises was found to be defective from October, 2019 to January, 2020, the calculation of the short fall amount during the mete
