Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As per the facts of this case, the meter was taken by the Electricity Board for two times. When the meter was taken by the Electricity Board for the first time, a notice was issued to the appellant stating that the meter will be checked on 27-10-1993 but the appellant did not attend on that date and the Board got the meter checked and found defective. Similarly, second time the Board got the meter checked in the presence of the appellant and then also the defect was found in the meter. Therefore, demand notice was issued to the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that when the Board finds that the meter is defective or not functioning properly, it has to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Act and it has no power to get the meter checked and on that basis issue a demand notice. In this connection, it is relevant to extract Section 26(6) of the Act, which reads as follows:
Check meter is usually installed for the purpose of checking and ascertaining the proper functioning of the installed meter but there is no legal bar for treating the check meter as an altered meter in place of the meter installed earlier when on checking the meter the licensee has found it to be defective. Such power of installing the meter, replacing it by another meter is also independent of existence of any dispute between the consumer and the licensee.
The expression "check meter" has no special significance or legal incidence for which there is a bar that check meter cannot be treated as an altered meter if the licensee intends to replace the defective meter by the check meter. It will be open to the Electrical Inspector to ascertain the correctness of the check meter along with the disputed meter when dispute is referred for adjudication by the Electrical Inspector and the licensee founds its case with reference to check meter. Prior to the amendment of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector or the competent person specially appointed by the State Government in this behalf, had a statutory duty to first determine whether the meter in question was defective and thereafter to estimate the quantity of the electricity consumed during such time as the meter in the opinion of the Electrical Inspector or the competent person "shall not have been correct". After the amendment of sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector is the only statutory authority to decide the dispute about the correctness of the metre, if such dispute is raised by either of the parties. If the Electrical Inspector on a reference comes to the finding that the meter has ceased to be correct, the said Inspector has a statutory duty to "estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct.

53. An argument in passing was made by the learned Counsel that sub-section (6) of Section 26 covers the field. The Apex Court did not pronounce its decision upon the said submission as the arbitrator had proceeded to consider the Board's claim for the said period as the dispute was also pending before the Electrical Inspector. In the said case, the meter installed in the premises of respondent-Ludhiana Steel Private Limited was found recording lower consumption whereupon a check meter was installed by the appellant-Punjab SEB. When a bill for Rs.28,56,854/- towards the energy said to have been consumed by the respondent but not recorded by the meter for the period prior to installation of check meter was issued, the respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction wherein temporary injunction was granted. Meanwhile, on the ground that the suit was pending the Electrical Inspector refused to proceed with an application filed by the respondent under Section 26(6) of the Act requesting him to decide whether the meter was not correct and whether he is liable to pay any amount over and above that paid by him already with respect to the said period. When the temporary injunction was vacated, the respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision whereupon the High Court directed the Electrical Inspector to decide the matter referred to him in accordance with law clarifying that the pendency of the suit is no ground for him not to proceed with the said application. Thereafter, upon a review petition being dismissed, an appeal there against was moved before the Apex Court wherein an arbitrator was appointed at the hearing of the special leave petition.

54. With respect of the argument of the learned Counsel that sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the 1910 Act empowers the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer for a period of six months prior to the check in addition to the period subsequent to the check, the Apex Court further observed:

...... We need not pronounce upon this submission inasmuch as the arbitrator has proceeded to consider the Board's claim for the very same period. The reference to Electrical Inspector too is for the very same period i.e., October 6, 1986 to May 16, 1988, the date on which the check meter was installed.