LexM.P.E.B. & OTHERS versus SMT. BASANTIBAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.P.E.B. & OTIIERS v. SMT. BASANTIBAI NOVEMBER 10, 1987 B [B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Section 26(6)-Scope of-Disputes regarding electricity meter-Jurisdiction of Electrical Inspector to decide-Electricity Board-Whether competent to issue supplementary bill for energy consumed during pendency of dispute regarding inherent defect/fault in the meter. ;..... G ""' r An electricity meter with three phases installed by appellant No. 1 for running an oil mill owned by the respondent was burnt. This was brought to the notice of appellant No. 4. The respondent was directed to deposit a certain amount towards price of the meter and the meter D connection charges, which the respondent complied, but the meter was not installed, nor electric supply connection restored. The respondent requested appellant No. 1 to restore electric supply by installation of another meter. However, appellant No. 1 sent a letter dated 4.3.1983 calling upon respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,346.10 as per the • attached supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983, prepared on the basis that ~ E the meter was not recording actual energy supplied and consumed, as it was running on two phases, since one of the three phases was not working, and threatening disconnection of supply without notice, for non-payment. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging F the legality of the aforesaid letter and the supplementary bill. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that when the power connection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of the Board, it was found that out of three phases, one phase was not working, and body seal of the meter was intact and, therefore, respondent was informed 0 that the bill should be revised due to non-working of one phase. It was alleged that respondent got the meter burnt, since it did not burn ordi- narily, and the body seal of the meter was broken, and the meter "! tampered with subsequently in order to avoid any liability. The High Court held that since the dispute, was as to whether the H meter was or was not correct it had to be decided by the Electrical 890 ~ I ' rr l' 1.\ ! I l M.P.E.B. v. SMT. BASANTIBAI 891 Inspector, under sub-section (6) of s. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, A 19 IO and so long as it was not decided, appellant No, 1 was not compe- tent to prepare the supplementary hill or revised bill, and quashed the letter dated 4.3.83 and supplementary bill of 2.3.83, as illegal. In the appeal by special leave it was urged on behalf of the appel- !ants that the respondent committed fraud iu breaking the body seal of the meter and running the same, and as such, the dispute did not attract B the provisions ofs. 26(6) of the Act and the dispute could not be decided by the Electrical Inspector. ---- DismisiO:g the appeal, HELD: Under sub-section (6) of s. 26 of the Indian Electricity c Act, 1910, it is only the dispute as to whether any meter referred to in s.ub-section (1) is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty, not recording correctly the electricity consumed, which can be decided by the Electrical lnspector.·[896A-B] ; D ' It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made, no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board, estimating the energy supplied to the consumer, as the Board is not empowered by the Act to do so: [896C-D I ' A dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with E the meter and breaking the body seal is one outside the ambit of section 26(6) of the Act. An Electrical Inspector has no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. [895H; 896A] In the instant case, it· appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was F not working at all; so, there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question \,; a correct one or a faulty one. This dispute, there- fore, squarely falls within the provisions of the Act, and it. has been rightly held by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector, who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the, meter is faulty and due to some defect it G has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.