High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-12-04Original petition allowed; Exts. P3, P7 and P8 ...

Elikutty v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 6717 of 2002-Y

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2008-12-04
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition allowed. Exts. P3, P7 and P8 are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a revised bill only for a prior period of six months, within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Amounts paid shall be adjusted towards the revised bill, and any excess collected shall be adjusted against future bills issued to the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Original petition allowed; Exts. P3, P7 and P8 quashed; revised bill for six months to be issued within two months; adjustments for payments already made and any excess collected to be adjusted against future bills.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ELIKUTTY

Respondents

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, represented by its Secretary, Vydhuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPPUNITHURA
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MARADU, VYTTILA
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI A.X. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI C.K. Karunakaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

Elikutty, a domestic electricity consumer (consumer No. 3659), challenged an additional electricity bill issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board under Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The dispute arose when, by Ext.P2, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs. 32,098 as an additional charge, later revised to Rs. 9,946 by Ext.P3. The petitioner had already challenged Ext.P2 and later filed O.P. No. 32298/2001, which directed a decision on Ext.P4. The core issue was whether the demand for the substantial additional charge was justified and whether proper referral to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act was observed. The meter had been defective since 1991 and was only replaced in 1997; the Board disconnected the petitioner for non-payment thereafter. The court considered that, in the absence of tampering, liability could not extend beyond six months, and that disputes about meter correctness should be referred to the Electrical Inspector. Citing John P. Stephen v. K.S.E.B. and George Joseph v. K.S.E.B., the court emphasized the need for an independent arbiter when meter disputes arise. The petition was allowed, Exts. P3, P7 and P8 quashed, and the Board directed to issue a revised bill for six months with appropriate adjustments within two months of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity ActClause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the additional bill was unjust as the meter was defective from 1991 and was replaced only in 1997; there was no tampering by the consumer. Under Section 26(6) the matter should be referred to the Electrical Inspector to determine the correctness of the meter, and the liability should be limited to a six-month period. Ext.P4 should have been considered with Ext.P7 in view of this legal provision. The petitioner prays for quashing Exts. P3, P7 and P8 and for a revised bill for the six-month prior period with adjustments for amounts already paid.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the additional charges were valid under Clause 31(c) and should be sustained, relying on the established billing framework. They argue that the dispute involves factual questions regarding meter reading and that the Electrical Inspector’s reference is only necessary where tampering or meter defect is in bona fide dispute. They maintain that the Board acted within its powers to recover charges for the relevant period and that Section 26(6) requires a referral to an Electrical Inspector in genuine disputes about meter correctness.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
John P. Stephen v. K.S.E.B.	2000 (3) KLT SN page 7, Case No.7	Positive	Used to establish that in the absence of tampering by the consumer, only six months' prior period of demand can be made.
George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. and others	ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 377	Positive	Cited regarding the interpretation of Section 26(6) and the role of the Electrical Inspector; discussed that tampering alters applicability of 26(6) and supports the view that 26(6) is for genuine meter disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Elikutty v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930** **OP.No. 6717 of 2002(Y)** **--------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **ELIKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE OUSEPH, RESIDING AT KANNIKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPPUNITHURA.** **3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, MARADU, VYTTILA.** **4. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM.** **ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.1TO4** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ORDER ON CMP. NO.11817/2002 IN OP. 6717/2002** ## **Dismissed** ## **04.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **P1:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL INVOICE CARD ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER.** ## **P2:- COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT INVOICE DT. 23.12.97** ## **P3:- COPY OF THE ADJUSTMENT BILL.** ## **P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 12.10.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **P5:- COPY OF THE LAST ISSUED REGULAR SPOT BILL DT. 13.2.2002.** **P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 29.10.01 IN OP. NO.32298/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM.** **P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.2.02 IN APPEAL FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE ADDITIONAL BILL ISSUED TO THIS PETITIONER.** ## **P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 25.2.02.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **tss** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 6717 of 2002-Y** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. She is a domestic consumer with consumer No.3659. The challenge is against Ext.P7 order by which Ext.P4 was disposed of rejecting her contentions. 2. The dispute between the parties arose when, by Ext.P2 invoice the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.32,098/- as additional amount to be collected from her towards the electricity charges. Later on, they revised the same and by Ext.P3, a revised bill was issued showing an amount of Rs.9,946/-. This was objected to by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4. The petitioner approached this court in O.P.No.32298/2001 challenging the additional bill, which was disposed of directing the competent authority to take a decision on Ext.P4. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order has been passed rejecting the appeal. 3. A reading of Ext.P7 reveals the following facts. The petitioner was a consumer of electricity from 1987 onwards. The meter was found defective from 1991 onwards. In spite of intimation given by the petitioner to the Board, the Board did not replace the same. Only in 1997 the meter OP 6717/2002 -2- was replaced. Ultimately, when dispute arose, they effected disconnection for non-payment of the electricity charges. It is noted in Ext.P7 that the additional bill was prepared in accordance with Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The order does not say that there had been any tampering by the consumer or that any other illegal activity was done by the consumer. The question is whether in such circumstances, the imposition of liability by way of additional bill, is justified. 4. The matter is covered by the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, viz. Section 26(6). Going by Section 26(6) of the Act, the matter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector, especially since the petitioner objected to the bill. That was not done. Therefore, the Electrical Inspector was deprived of any opportunity to verify the facts and assess the electricity charges payable by the petitioner. Apart from that, as there is no tampering, etc. of the meter, the maximum period to which the charges could be levied, is only six months. 5. The above legal position stands declared by this court in **John P. Stephen v. K.S.E.B.** (2000 (3) KLT SN page 7, Case No.7), wherein it was held that in the absence of any tampering by the consumer, only six months' prior period of demand can be made and the Board cannot demand OP 6717/2002 -3- electricity charges for more than six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a recent decision of this court in **George Joseph v. K.S.E.B. And others** (ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 377) wherein the legal position with respect to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act was analysed in detail in the light of the various decisions of this court and the Apex Court. It was held that in cases where the consumer tampers with the meter and interferes with the functioning of the meter, the question of a dispute having to be referred to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) does not arise. Section 26(6) is intended for resolving genuine disputes regarding correctness of meter between the licensee and the consumer, by an independent arbiter namely the Electrical Inspector. It was also observed that the provision mandates the licensee to get the expert decision of the independent arbiter namely, the Electrical Inspector, when it is alleged that the meter is defective and is not recording correct consumption. That was not done in this case, obviously. 6. As already noticed, going by the findings in Ext.P7 itself, the meter was defective from 1991 onwards and was replaced only on 23.12.1997 and additional bill was issued only in the year 1999. The petitioner cannot be faulted for any of the alleged defects in the meter also. Therefore, the only OP 6717/2002 -4- alternative is to raise a demand for a period of six months alone. Now, the bill that has been issued, viz. Ext.P2 is for the period from 1991 to 1997, which cannot be supported at all. 7. Therefore, Exts.P3, P7 and P8 are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a revised bill only for a prior period of six months. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount already paid, as ordered by this court, will be adjusted towards the bill. If any excess amount has been collected, the same shall be adjusted towards future bills issued to the petitioner. The original petition is allowed as above. **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav/** OP 6717/2002 -5- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 6717of 2002-Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## JUDGMENT 4th December, 2008.