IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA nd ON THE 2 OF MARCH, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 28137 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (STM) MPPKVVCL, DIVISION SHAJAPUR, LALGHATI SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI SHRIKRISHNA SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND M/S ASHISH TRADERS THROUGH SURESH KUMAR BODANA GRAM GOLIYAKHEDI, BERCHA ROAD, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner-Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2021 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Indore.

The petitioner is a Company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in activities of the distribution and supply of the electricity. The respondent is the consumer having industrial 3 phase 150 HP connection with contract demand of 112KW. The Executive Engineer of the Signature Not Verified petitioner conducted an inspection on 27.05.2021 in the premises and found that on Phase-B potential was not working properly. A Panchnama bearing No.4919/14 was prepared. The inspection tamper report was prepared and supplementary bill of Rs.5,47,983/- was issued to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid supplementary bill, the respondent approached the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum, Indore contending that the aforesaid recovery is contrary to the provisions of the Rule 8.35 of M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2013.

After hearing the petitioner, the learned Forum has set aside the demand of Rs.5,47,983/- and directed the petitioner to calculate the consumer unit on the basis of average of three months from August, September and October, 2020.

Hence, this present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Forum has wrongly applied the provisions of Rule 8.35 which applies to defective or tampered meter whereas the case of the petitioner is not of a defective meter as the meter was found running properly. As per MRI tamper data report, meter testing report dated 23.09.2021, meter number 9130740 was found running properly, therefore, the order of the Forum is liable to be set aside.

The Forum is constituted by appointing experts in the field. The Chairman, Member of the Forum are Ex Officers of the Electricity Company. They are the best person to examine the technical expert report, fault in the meter and the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. As per the inspection report, a Panchanama dated 27.05.2021 B Phase Voltage Zero was displaying in the meter, hence, the meter has recorded faulted KWH and accordingly as per MRI tamper data report an additional billing of unit 75140 has been calculated for the Signature Not Verified period from November, 2020 to November, 2021 which is not according to the Clause 8.35 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2013. After the remand the petitioner has not assessed the consumption of unit to show the difference.

Clause 8.35 specifically provides the procedure of billing for the duration when the meter remains dis-functional. As per the said Clause (b) in case, if during the period when the meter is defective, the check meter is not installed or is also found defective, the quantity of electricity supplied shall be determined on the basis of average monthly consumption of previous three meter reading cycles. The defective meter is defined in Clause 8.6 and according to which the licensee shall have a right to test any meter and related apparatus, if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the meter.

As per the inspection report, the meter was not correctly recording the voltage therefore, the meter was sealed. The total difference of unit 3757 was found during the relevant period. Accordingly, the revise