Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14308/2006] S.B. SINHA, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter.

3. The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent and it was found that the same was running fast by about +1.79% which is said to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court inter alia contending;

37. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 49 of the 1948 Act and the regulations and the tariff framed by the Delhi Vidyut Board.

38. At the outset we have noticed that the appellant did not object to the change of the meter. It proceeded on the basis that the change of the meter is permissible in law. He being allegedly unaware of his rights allowed the respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct meter by another one which according to him is also correct. It, therefore, in our opinion does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to turn round and contend that electronic meters do not record correct consumption of electrical energy. It is one thing to say that electronic meters when tested do not register the actual consumption, as a result whereof, the consumer would have to pay the energy charges more than he is otherwise liable but it is another thing to say that it was legally impermissible. It is not, however denied or disputed that whether meter is installed by the licensee or by the consumer himself, the same must have the requisite certificate granted in terms of the regulations, the provisions wherefor have been made in the regulations made under the 2000 Act.