LexBOMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus LAFFANS (I) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- BOMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT A UNDERTAKING v. LAFF ANS (I) PVT. LTD. AND ANR. APRIL 21, 2005 B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Electricity Act, 1910-Section 26(6)-Electric meter-Burnt on two c occasions and allegedly found slow on two occasioris-Replacement of meters by electricity supplier without referring the matter to Electrical Inspector- Bill revised on the basis of average consumption in preceding year and demand raised-Challenged in Writ Petition-Dismissal by Single Judge of High Court-LPA allowed by Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held: Section 26(6) is applicable for the period when the meter was alleged to be incorrect, but is not applicable when the meter became non-functional due to D its getting burnt-Hence, demand on the basis of average consumption of preceding year is justified for the period when the meter was burnt-But not for ihe period when the meter was found incorrect due to non-compliance with the provision u/s. 26(6)-Electricity Rules, 1956-Rule 57. E Appellant supplied electricity to the respondent-Consumer. One of the meters installed at the premises of the respondent got burnt. Afte.r its replacement, on routine checking, the same was found to be running slow -- and hence was replaced. Again the replaced meter was found to be slow and was further replaced which also got burnt. Appellant had removed F the meters without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector u/ s.26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910. During the period for which the meter was alleged to have recorded incorrect reading, bills had been regularly sent on the basis of reading, recorded by meter and the same were duly paid by the respondent. Appellant revised the bills on the basis of pattern of consumption in the preceding one year and raised demand. As the G respondent did not pay the amount, a notice of disconnection was sent. Challenging the notices of demand and disconnection, the respondent filed Writ Petition. The same was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court on the ground that since the respondent-consumer had not raised the dispute u/s. 26(6), appellant was entitled to replace the defective H '785 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 3 S.C.R. A meter and raise demand on the basis of average consumption in the previous year. Allowing the Letters Patent Appeal of the respondent, Division Bench of the High Court held that since the correctness of the meter was disputed by the appellant, it should have referred the dispute u/s. 26(6), and that appellant having not done so, it was not open to it to B raise the bill on the basis of average consumption of preceding year. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The applicability of Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 is attracted only when the meter is not correct. The provision C contemplates a meter which is either running slow or fast with the result that it does not register the correct amount of energy supplied. Where the meter is running slow or fast, it will .be possible for the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer by determining the extent or percentage of error in recording the supply, D whether plus or minus. However, where the meter is burnt or is completely non-functional, such an exercise is not at all possible. Therefore, Section 26(6) can have no application in a case where a meter has become completely non-functional on account of any reason whatsoever. E F [793-E-Fl 1.2. Section 26(6) will have no applicability (i) if the consumer is found to have committed a fraud with the licensee and thereby illegally extracted the supply of energy preventing or avoiding its recording, or (ii) has resorted to a trick or device whereby also the electricity is consumed by the consumer without being recorded by the meter. [792-E-Fl 2.1. In the present case, for period for which the readings could not be recorded or retrieved because the meter was burnt there is nothing wrong in the licensee having raised the demand based on the average consumption for the similar period during the previous year. It is a G reasonable basis. But for the period for which, the meter was not correct, none of the parties has referred the. dispute to the Electrical Inspector. The meter though it is alleged by the appellant to have remained not correct, readings have been regularly recorded, bills rais
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.