JUDGEMENT

31st March, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. The foundation of the challenge in all these writ petitions is identical. The common question that wades through all the writ petitions is that whether by applying the multiplying factor (MF) the distribution licensee can modify the bill and demand payment from the consumer against the electricity consumption. Before we deal with the said question, we would like to briefly note the relevant facts in each of the writ petitions.

2. WP(C) No.2338 of 2015 The petitioner represents the Distribution Licensee (CESU).

The Opposite Party No.1 is the consumer of electricity under HT Industrial (M) supply category for a contract demand of 27 K.W. of load under CESU. The power supply was effected from 01.07.2012 with installation of a Low Tension Current Transformer,(LTCT) meter bearing SL. No.CESU-0350, IR-01 & having Multiplying Factor of (M.F.) 20. Details of the metering installation, load details, transformer details & meter details etc. were made known to the consumer when the consumer had signed the test certificate. It has been clearly mentioned that MF will be 20, but due to oversight & mistake, the bill continued with M.F-1 and the said metering was continued till the day of filing of the writ petition with the same Current Transformer (CT) & Potential Transformer (PT) ratio. After detection of the aforesaid omission in respect of the multiplying factor (MF), the modified bills were raised with M.F-20 w.e.f. May, 2014.

3. Since the consumer was under-billed for the period from 01.07.2012 to April, 2014, not being billed with the correct M.F, the differential on the basis of the actual units consumed were calculated with M.F.-20 in lieu of M.F.1 and thus, under-billed amount was worked out at Rs.5,09,415/-. The consumer was accordingly asked for payment of the said differential amount by the letter No.9027 dated

22.09.2014, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the consumer had filed a Consumer Complaint Case No.108 of 2014 in the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) against the Distribution Licensee (CESU)

invoking the power under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act.

5. The consumer claimed in the complaint that the meter was malfunctioning and as such Regulations 97 & 98 of the OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004 would apply. Further it has been contended that Regulation 98 of the OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004 speaks about the non-availability of meter-reading due to fault in the metering equipments or due to absence of the multiplying factor of the meter, billing in such cases shall be done as per proceeding as laid down in Regulation-97. The GRF by waiving the objection of the petitioner has passed the order dated 10.11.2014, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, observing as follows:

“We perused the available documents including the billing statement from July’ 2012 and revised statement from July’ 2012 to March’2014 towards M.F. change from 01 to 20. Regulation-98 of OERC Distribution Supply Code, clearly mentioned as “if the readings of meter working in association with Current Transformer (CT) and Potential Transformer (PT) and other auxiliary equipment if any, are found to be incorrect on account of wrong connection or disconnection of such CTs, PTs and other equipment or on account of omissions of commissions in regard to multiplying factor, erroneous adoption of CT ratio, PT ratio, the billing in such cases shall be done as laid down in Regulation-97.

As per Regulation-97 of OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004 for the period the meter remained defective or was lost, the billing shall be done on the basis of average meter reading for the consecutive three billing periods succeeding the billing period in which the defect or loss was noticed. It shall be presumed that use of electricity through defective meter was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of Dom