Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: check meter in Suresh Jindal vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 14 December, 2005Matching Fragments
3. My measurement of KWH (Kilowatt Per Hour) is highly accurate.
4. I have a vast memory and can provide you with the past billing data.
5. I can be read with help of Meter Reading Instrument. This eliminates human errors in recording the transfer of data.
6. I display any of the following problems that may occur at your premises: (i) Earth Leakage, (ii) Problem with neutral and earth wire, (iii) Reverse energy flow, and (iv) Loose wire.
20. A domestic consumer has brought the present action alleging that he is the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K No. 2540 F 320018 having a sanctioned load of 15 KW. Petitioner states that on 26.4.2003 employees of the respondent came to his premises. Notwithstanding the fact that the existing electro mechanical meter was found in a perfect condition, it was replaced with an electronic meter. It is alleged that as per Rule 57 of the Electric Supply Rules, 1956, the meter was required to be checked before installation and had to conform to the relevant Indian Standard Specification. According to the petitioner ever since the meter was installed he started receiving inflated bills which was proof enough that the meter was faulty.
21. Petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- on 29.9.2004 towards meter testing charges. On 3.3.2005 an inspecting team is stated to have come to check the meter and certified the same as normal.
22. Relying upon the consumption pattern when electro mechanical meter was measuring the current and when the new electronic meter was recording consumption, petitioner states that the average monthly consumption has gone up from 611 units to 1640 units.
23. Prayer made is that respondent be directed to install an electro mechanical meter purchased by the petitioner and that the unilateral act of the respondent in changing the electro mechanical meter and installing an electronic meter be declared illegal. Further, directions are prayed that the respondent be directed to revise the bills which were raised on the basis of the consumption recorded by the electronic meter.
106. As far as the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the electronic meter replaced was not as per ISI specifications. The meter was tested twice and was found to be in order. CPRI, an independent agency also checked the meter and found it to be correct. In the teeth of intrinsic evidence, external aid being past consumption is of no use and cannot be used to determine the correctness of the electronic meter. Relief as prayed that the respondent be directed to re- install an electro-mechanical meter cannot be granted.
107. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of answering the four questions framed as aforesaid. Relief is declined to the petitioner. However, directions are issued to the respondent No. 1 to notify all consumers in whose premises electronic meters have been installed to check their wiring and ensure that no two connections have a common neutral. For future, before replacing the existing electro-mechanical meter with an electronic meter, wiring of the consumer would be checked and if it is noted that there is inter-mixing of the neutral wire, a weeks notice before replacing the meter be given to the consumer to have the deficiency removed.