Karnataka High Court
M/S Spa Plaza Shop Owners Association vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company ... on 24 October, 2011
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
JURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT GF HARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1 W.P.36978/2010
c/w W.P.33031/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 247 DAY OF OCTOBER 20110
BEFORE . oe |
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAS ce
WRIT PETITION NO.36978/ 2010 iGM-KEB)
CLE
WRIT PETITION HO.35021/ 2010 (GMCKEB)
M/S SPA PLAZA SHOP OWRERS ASSOCIATION
1094, OTC ROAD, RAGARTHP2T,
BANGALORE- 560.002
(REPRESENTED BY I'S MANAGER)
.. PETITIONER
{By Sri SHRIDHAR PRABHU, Adv. for
__ SHRIDHAR PRABHU ASSOCIATES)
"}. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
-
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
}
|
'
}
i
1
2 W.P.36978/2010
o/w W.P.33031/2010
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-S60001 sists
(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR),
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER |
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY.
LIMITED, W-5, SUB DIVISION, .
MYSUGAR BUILDINGS, J Cc ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 002
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY.
COMMISSION, 618 & 77 FLOOR, a
MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS, -
#9/2,M.G.RGAD,: .. >
BANGALORE - 560 OL |
(REPRE SENTED BY Ts § SECRETARY
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Smt PUSHPA R.GIRIMAsT, Adv. FOR R1;
Smt PRABHA R GIRIMAJI, Adv. FOR R2;
Sri T.S.AMAR KUMAR, Adv. FOR R3)
"(NS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
3 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
. "TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED
"16.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A.
OURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
3 W.P.36978/2010
o/w W.P.33031/2010
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS va
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER et
(E) 2W-5, SUB DIVISIOK, BESCOM,
MYSUGAR BUILDING, J C ROAD,
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE EROINEER
HTRATINGMT DIVISION
BESCOM, BANGALORE -
... PETITIONERS
(By Smt PRABHA K GIPIMAJT, Adv.)
OL
| M/S S SPA PLAZA OWNERS ASSOCIATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 1094,
OTC: RGAD, NAGARTHPET,
-_ REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
- OMBUDSMAN
_ HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6™ AND 77 FLOORS,
' MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
L
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
4 W.P.36978/2010
c/w W.P.33031/2010
3. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF}
CENTRAL STORES PREMISES
BESCOM, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL --
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri SHRIDHAR PRABHU, Adv. FOR
SHRIDHAR ASSOCIATES ial RY) _
THIS WRIT PETITION. {8 FILED URDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING
TO ANNEXURE N DATED. 14.06.2010 MADE ON THE
FILE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY, COMMISSION, BANGALORE, THE
SECOND RESPONDENT AND ALSO THE ORDER OF
THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2009,
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE J.
a -- PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
_° PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ®' GROUP, THIS DAY,
__ COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.36978/2010 is the wo commercial complex consisting of 50 shop premises.
OURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 5 W.P 36976/2010 o/w W.P.33031/2010 Each shop premises has a sub-meter with a main meta -- installed by the respondent No.l." pr complained that the main meter is defbctive and it ti . running fast. The Meter Testing an Division of Sret respondent inspected the Premios and checked the meters. They found that 'the current 'transformer was defective. It was ellegedky replaced by higher capecity CT. The second reapordent found that the meter was giving slow reading, tec biling was done for 10 years and a supplementary bil wes 'issued under Annexure -
1D for payment of Rs.13 Lakhs and odd The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before CGRF. The CGRF found that the back-billing could be done only . SS for a maximum: period of six months, therefore, reduce? Ye claim from 10 years to ex months. The petitioner | aggrieved by the order of CGRF filed an appeal before the oe Ombudsman. The appeal is allowed. The back-billing at COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR) 6 W.P.36978/2010 o/w W.P.33031/9010
2. Respondent No.1 directed MT Division to re - = inspection and revalidated the earlier re-inspection SS. noted that the meter was giving slow reading. The re irmpection was done after the onder passed by the Ombudsman. The petitioncr aggrioved by the order of respondents 1 & 2 vide Aunmure ~ 'A' has filed W.P.No. 36978/ 2010, Respondent z & 2 aggrieved by the order oa the - Ombudsman have filed W.P.No. 39081/2010, SNS
3. It the contention of the BESCOM in W.P.#f0.33081/ 2010 that the consumer petitioner . SS applied to electrical inspector for the purpose of
-jnspection of the meter who was present when the re- | "inspection: was conducted that the team sent by the | electrical impector has found that the re-inspection is
-- and proper. In that view submitted that the consumer petitioner ia liable to pay the back-billing 'OURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 7 W.P.36978/2010 o/w W.P.33031/2010 charges vide Annexure - 'A' and Annexure - T. The BESCOM has also challenged the order of CORF which. reduced the back billing fom 10 years te wix montha are w also the order of Ombudsman is challenged,
4. The KERC Regulation at 27.61 reads thus:-
accuracy of the meter, he sivali give notice to the Licensee. The Livensee shali refer the matter for inspection / testing of the meter to a "Third Party Agency" approved. by the Commission under information to. the Consumer. The Consumer stall pay the specified testing fee _-- aitectty to such Agency. The Agency shall test " the accuracy of the meter using an electronic type teating equipment with factiity of a printer attached to tt which shall provide an automatic os printout of test meacings, percentage eror with _ dute / time | RRNo., etc. 'The Agency shall
- provide printout of test readings, percentage error with date / tima / R.RINo., etc to the Consumer under a copy to the Licensee'.
= COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 8 W.P.36978/2010 o/w W.P.33031/2010
5. When there i a dispute with regard te va accuracy of a meter when the consumer ghee notice to. ----
the first respondent, it is incumbent. that. fit tinind party inspection should be conducted, instead . the. Bret respondent itself will send ite team for meter inapection. It was found that CT was defcotive fond $ was replaced. There was no compliance of Clause 27. a1 of KERC Regulation, which . is a 'mandatory requirement. The Ombudemex in bis omer in paragraph No.S has made the following observations a oo "The second .respondent's contention ts _ "that the CT connected to 5/5 was ficulty and the "ratio was recorded as 2.5:1 from September 9005 to April 2009. But when the same ___ instaliation was rated on 06.09.2008 and report "te submitted to the firet respondent which found _ to be recording within the permissible limits of : error".
+o 'OURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT.OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 9 W.P.36978/2010 o/w W.P.33031/2010 Respondent No.2 that CT was defective from September a 2005. On the thorough consideration of f the material, it . is evident that when the complaint was given, the mandatory requirement of third party, inspection wes not conducted by the respondents. : Therefore, whatever reports given by the inspection teain carcot have any credibility. The contention that CT 'wes defective from September 2005 seo ets belied by the inspection report of 06.09.2008 'that ineter wos recording within the perminsibie linste of the error error. In that view of the taster, order of the Ombudsman is sound and proper.
Petition of the consumer is allowed. Petition of the firet respondent is disenissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE