Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The respondents have annexed the statement at Exhibit-1 which shows the meter readings and consumption of units under the two meters supplied to the petitioners. It is clearly revealed from the said statement that for the period prior to 26-11-91, the meter reading shown on the meter was multiplied by 40 to reach the correct amount of electricity consumed by the petitioners while for a period 26-11-91 to 6-5-94, the actual meter reading was billed without multiplying by multiplying factor. The respondents in their affidavit in reply have in unequivocal terms stated that the meter No. 910030 (old) through which the petitioners derived electricity supply had a multiplying factor of 40 and for arriving at the correct amount of actual consumption of electricity the said meter reading was to be multiplied by 40. For the period prior to November 1991 the bills were raised to petitioners after multiplying the meter reading by 40 but for the bill period from 26-11-91 to 6-5-94 the petitioners were billed only as per the reading shown by the meter without multiplying the same by multiplying factor of 40. This happened because the account of the 1st petitioners was transferred from old account No. 909/ 913/200 to new account No. 568/186/1 during the process of systemalization of the meter process. These facts stated by the respondents in their affidavit in reply are not at all controverted. Though the affidavit in reply was filed by the respondents before this Court on 27-6-95 and even if it be assumed that the petitioners were supplied with copy of the said affidavit in reply only on 15-12-1999, the hearing of the writ petition took place only on 14-1-2000 and the petitioners had sufficient opportunity to rebut the facts stated in the affidavit in reply if the same were not true. I find no justifiable reason to disbelieve the case set up by the respondents in their affidavit in reply that there was error on the part of the respondents in rising the bills for the electricity consumed by the petitioners for the period from 26-11-91 to 6-5-' 94 by not multiplying the reading shown on meter by multiplying with multiplying factor and this happened during the process of systematisation of the meter reading process. Similarly, for the amount of Rs. 9,675/- demanded vide debit note No. 36696 dated 3-2-95, the respondents in affidavit in reply have explained that the electricity consumed by the petitioners for the period from 7-3-94 to 29-3-94 was not billed. It was because at the request of the petitioners, the meter No. 0922453 and 0328359 which were installed at petitioners' place were removed on 29-3-1994 for the purpose of consolidation of meters. The last meter reading was taken prior to removal of the said meter on 7-3-94. Since the meter reading is taken on bi monthly basis and the next meter reading was to be taken on 6-5-94 and by that time the meter had already been removed on 29-3-94, the meter reader having found on meter at installation for the period 7-3-94 to 6-5-94 no bill was issued. These facts are again not disputed or rebutted by the petitioners since no affidavit in rejoinder has been filed. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the correctness of the stand taken by the respondents that the second debit note No. 36696 dated 3-2-95 for an amount of Rs. 9,675/- was issued for electricity consumed by petitioners for the period from 7-3-94 to 29-3-94. It is, thus, clear that both the debit notes dated 3-2-95 were issued by respondents for recovery of amount of electricity charges for the electricity consumed by the petitioners but were not fully billed due to human errors. The debit note No. 36695 for an amount of Rs. 2,82,130.48 was issued for the electricity supplied to petitioners for the period 26-11-1991 to 6-5-94 for which the petitioners was under billed in as much as reading shown on meter was not multiplied by multiplying factor of 40 and debit note No. 36696 for an amount of Rs. 9,675/- was issued since the petitioners were not billed for the period 7-3-94 to 29-3-94 though the electricity was consumed by the petitioners during that period. It is thus a simple case of human error and, therefore, if the respondents issued the debit notes demanding the amount towards the charges of electricity already supplied and consumed by petitioners, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the respondents in issuing the two debit notes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and another, (supra) particularly paragraphs 48, 49 and 52 of the said report. The said relevant paragraphs 48, 49 and 52 read thus :----

The aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd., cannot be applied here since present case is not a case where the electric meter has been found defective and there is any dispute about the correctness of the reading shown on the meter. In the present case it was human error in as much as while raising the bills for energy consumed, the reading was shown on the meter was not multiplied by multiplying factor which was essential to arrive at the actual electricity consumed. For finding that the consumption of electricity by petitioners, the reading shown in the meter was required to be multiplied by multiplying factor of 40 but for the period from 26-11-91 to 6-5-94 while raising bills, the meter reading was not multiplied by multiplying factor resulting into error and that has been sought to be corrected by the respondents by way of debit notes. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the amount claimed by respondents by way debit notes is not the amount due since the petitioners consumed the electricity but they were under billed by not multiplying the reading shown in meter by multiplying factor. In this view of the matter, six months restriction imposed in section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 has no application. Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 reads thus :---

9. The aforesaid ratio clearly applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case and I have no hesitation in holding that the restriction as to six months period provided in section 26 of the Electricity Act has no application to a demand made by the license or the Electricity Board or undertaking for the unpaid amount for the electricity consumed if the consumer was underbilled due to clerical mistake or human error or such like mistake.
10. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the register of meter is conclusive proof of supply of electricity made and consumed in the absence of any fraud by the consumer and that the respondents were not entitled to claim the amount under debit notes beyond the period six months as provided under sub-section (6) of section 26.