Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The demand for Rs. 2,05,479-50 is on account of slow recording by the installation to an extent of 89.6%. The installation is back-billed for a period of 6 months from May 89 to October 89 at normal rates. This 89.6% slow recording is inclusive of 66-2/3rd% slow recording on account of wrong CT connection and the remaining 23% slow recording (out of 89.6%) is on account of mechanical defect in the meter. (66-2/3% slow recording on account of wrong CT connection + 23% on account of mechanical defect in the meter - 89.6% slow recording). On account of slow recording due to mechanical defect in the meter (faulty meter) there was further fall in the consumption for the months of July and August 89, Regulation 28 of the E.S.R. deals with correctness of meter (faulty meter). Regulation 28 and Section 26(6) of I.E. Act are not attracted."

9. From the first portion of the bill it is clear that the petitioner has been billed for the period from June 1987 to April 1989 for slow recording at 66-2/3rd% on the basis of wrong C.T. connection. The amount claimed in this regard is Rs. 1,98,423-60. The second portion of the bill relates to the period May 1989 to October 1989 covering a period of six months. This includes 23% slow recording due to mechanical defect in the meter. According to the respondents, the 23% slow recording due to mechanical defect was also present in the previous period but as it is not permissible for them to claim more than six months as per Regulation 28 of the Supply Regulations, it is not claimed. The claim in this regard is restricted to the period of six months from May 1989 to October 1989. According to the latter portion of the bill, the total slow recording of the units was to the tune of 1,11,070 units. This included 66-2/3rd% slow recording due to wrong C.T. connection. The total amount demanded for this period is Rs. 2,05,479-50. Thus, under both the items, the demand is made for a sum of Rs.4,03,903-10.

10. The contention of Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when it is found that the meter is recording slow due to mechanical defect, it is not open to the respondents to probe further into the matter and state that out of the total slow recording, certain percentage was referrable to wrong C.T. connection and certain portion to slow recording as a result of mechanical defect in the meter. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court.

12. Thus it is clear that it is only the stow recording of the meter due to mechanical defect in the meter alone will attract the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act. Slow recording of the meter due to any other reasons not relating to defect in the meter will not attract the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act.

13. In the instant case, both the aspects are involved. It is the case of the respondents themselves that 66-2/3rd% slow recording was due to wrong C.T. connection and it was not due to mechanical defect in the meter. Therefore, 66-2/3rd% slow recording cannot be connected to and is not relatable to slow recording of the meter due to mechanical defect in it. So, this portion of the claim cannot be held to have been hit by Section 26(6) of the Act.