Tagore Public School Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderkanwaljit singh ahluwalia, j.1. tagore public school, agar nagar, ludhiana has approached this court for setting aside the order (annexure p-4) passed by the appellate authority, whereby award given by the chief electrical inspector to govt. of punjab, patiala was set aside. this writ petition calls for interpretation of section 26(6) of the indian electricity act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the act') and also pose a question: where turns of the current transformer were less as compared to the specifications, whether that can be construed as defect or incorrect reading, within the ambit of section 26(6) of the act?2. before this question is examined, it will be necessary to advert to the facts of the case. the petitioner-school, before 20th april, 1995, was having three separate electricity connections. these connections, on 28th april, 1995, were clubbed by the punjab state electricity board and a single meter of three phase connection was installed. the electricity meter was having a capacity of 100/5a having multiplying factor (mf) of 10 along with cts 50/5a having net mf of 10 x (50/100) i.e. 5.3. junior engineer-ii, on 7th october, 1996, carried inspection and found that current transformer rotation was 50/5 amp. based on this, the executive engineer (operations) issued a demand notice on 26th may, 2000, saying that the meter was checked on 25th march, 2000 by the employee of the electricity board and the following shortcoming was found:1. mf 15 was to be applied on the aforesaid connection, however, in the bill mf 5 was being applied. therefore, difference from 6/95 to 4/2000 is being charged. dl = 87.730sl = 68.000-----------additional load = 19.730-----------4. after noticing the shortcoming, petitioner was called upon to pay rs. 7,32,720/-. the petitioner assailed this order before the state consumers disputes redressal commission, punjab. when the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner and electricity board agreed that the matter ought to be referred to the chief electrical inspector for the decision. the chief electrical inspector, vide annexure p-2, gave his award.5. the chief electrical inspector noticed the schedule of checking, which is given in sales regulation 112.2, and stated that as per the regulations of the electricity board, each three phase connection is required to be checked at least once a year. the chief electrical inspector concluded that it cannot be believed that a connection of 68 kws was never checked during the period of five years and the defect of metering system continued to exist for a long period of five years. the chief electrical inspector took into consideration the documents (annexure r-3, i.e. report dated 2nd january, 1996; annexure r-4, i.e. checking report dated 7th october, 1996; and annexure r-5, i.e. memo dated 19th may, 1998) to say that it is sufficiently proved that current transformers of the ratio of 50/5 were installed. having come to the conclusion that current transformers installed were not in consonance with the specifications, relying upon section 26(6) of the act, the chief electrical inspector held that petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability for a period of more than six months. this order of the chief electrical inspector was challenged before the appellate authority. the appellate authority, without examining section 26(6) of the act, its import, its effect and interpretation, in a most generalized manner, stated that if a consumer has used the electricity, he is bound to pay the amount.6. in the present case, in the written statement filed, respondent-electricity board has taken the following definite stand:3. ...the official who checked the connection was asstt. executive engineer (aee[t]), of unit no. 3, k.s.s. nagar, ludhiana. vide his report bearing ecr no. 69 dated 25.03.2000, it was reported that the turns of the ct metering equipment of the consumer were less as compared to the specifications of the ct. for capacity of 50/5 amps, 3 number turns were required. instead of three number turns on the ct, only a straight cable was passing through the cts. this made the capacity of the ct as 150/5 amp. consequently, the multiplying factor, which is used for determining the total current consumed, instead of five was actually in fact fifteen. in this view of the matter, the account of the petitioner had to be overhauled with multiplying factor of 15 instead of 5. on the basis of this, a demand notice was sent to the consumer on 26.05.2000 (annexure p-l to the writ petition) for payment of the revised charges of rs. 7,32,720/-. this demand notice is self-explanatory and it clearly brings out the fact that the account of the petitioner was being overhauled from june 1995 to april, 2000. vide this notice the petitioner was asked to comply with the said demand within a period of seven days.section 26(6) of the act reads as under:26. meters.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx(6) where the difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an electrical inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such inspector ceased to be correct, such inspector shall 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; but save as aforesaid; the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud; be conclusive proof of such amount of quantity:provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the electrical inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do.7. admittedly, the electricity meter was not giving a correct reading. according to the electricity board, only a straight cable was passing through current transformer and, therefore, instead of taking three turns, it was taking only one turn.8. lt. col. k. p. singh, appearing for the respondent electricity board, on a query put by this court, has stated that in the present case, petitioner has not tampered with the electricity meter and has not used any device for causing inadequate turns. no willful misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner.9. once that is so, the meter was not giving correct reading, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for a period of five years. section 26(6) of the act specifically states that in such a situation, electrical quantity supplied cannot be quantified for a period exceeding six months. therefore, there is no doubt that section 26(6) of the act limits the liability of the consumer, only for a period of six months. an ancillary question, which has also arisen is: whether the current transformer can be construed as part of the electricity meter or it is some separate device? learned counsel, appearing for the electricity board, has made an attempt to urge that the defect in the current transformer cannot be inferred as a defect of electricity meter.10. to controvert this, mr. sunil chadha has relied upon a division bench judgment of bombay high court rendered in 'the tata hydro-electric power supply co. ltd. v. union of india 2002 (2) rcr (civil) 183 : air 2001 bom 240 to contend that current transformer enables the electric current from being reduced, so that it could pass through the meter without causing any damage to it. therefore, the current transformer is a meter within the meaning of section 20 of the act and the defect in current transformer is to be understood as a defect in the electricity meter.11. lt. col. k. p. singh, appearing for the respondent-electricity board, is unable to dislodge the legal proposition propounded by bombay high court. therefore, the present writ petition is accepted, order (annexure p-4) dated 7th december, 2006 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and order (annexure p-2) dated 23rd august, 2005 passed by the chief electrical inspector is maintained. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Tagore Public School, Agar Nagar, Ludhiana has approached this Court for setting aside the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the appellate authority, whereby award given by the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Punjab, Patiala was set aside. This writ petition calls for interpretation of section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and also pose a question: where turns of the Current Transformer were less as compared to the specifications, whether that can be construed as defect or incorrect reading, within the ambit of Section 26(6) of the Act?

2. Before this question is examined, it will be necessary to advert to the facts of the case. The petitioner-school, before 20th April, 1995, was having three separate electricity connections. These connections, on 28th April, 1995, were clubbed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and a single meter of three phase connection was installed. The electricity meter was having a capacity of 100/5A having Multiplying Factor (MF) of 10 along with CTs 50/5A having net MF of 10 x (50/100) i.e. 5.

3. Junior Engineer-II, on 7th October, 1996, carried inspection and found that Current Transformer rotation was 50/5 amp. Based on this, the Executive Engineer (Operations) issued a demand notice on 26th May, 2000, saying that the meter was checked on 25th March, 2000 by the employee of the Electricity Board and the following shortcoming was found:

1. MF 15 was to be applied on the aforesaid connection, however, in the bill MF 5 was being applied. Therefore, difference from 6/95 to 4/2000 is being charged. DL = 87.730SL = 68.000-----------Additional load = 19.730-----------

4. After noticing the shortcoming, petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 7,32,720/-. The petitioner assailed this order before the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner and Electricity Board agreed that the matter ought to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for the decision. The Chief Electrical Inspector, vide Annexure P-2, gave his award.

5. The Chief Electrical Inspector noticed the schedule of checking, which is given in Sales Regulation 112.2, and stated that as per the Regulations of the Electricity Board, each three phase connection is required to be checked at least once a year. The Chief Electrical Inspector concluded that it cannot be believed that a connection of 68 KWs was never checked during the period of five years and the defect of metering system continued to exist for a long period of five years. The Chief Electrical Inspector took into consideration the documents (Annexure R-3, i.e. report dated 2nd January, 1996; Annexure R-4, i.e. checking report dated 7th October, 1996; and Annexure R-5, i.e. Memo dated 19th May, 1998) to say that it is sufficiently proved that Current Transformers of the ratio of 50/5 were installed. Having come to the conclusion that Current Transformers installed were not in consonance with the specifications, relying upon Section 26(6) of the Act, the Chief Electrical Inspector held that petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability for a period of more than six months. This order of the Chief Electrical Inspector was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, without examining Section 26(6) of the Act, its import, its effect and interpretation, in a most generalized manner, stated that if a consumer has used the electricity, he is bound to pay the amount.

6. In the present case, in the written statement filed, respondent-Electricity Board has taken the following definite stand:

3. ...The official who checked the connection was Asstt. Executive Engineer (AEE[T]), of Unit No. 3, K.S.S. Nagar, Ludhiana. Vide his report bearing ECR No. 69 dated 25.03.2000, it was reported that the turns of the CT metering equipment of the consumer were less as compared to the specifications of the CT. For capacity of 50/5 Amps, 3 number turns were required. Instead of three number turns on the CT, only a straight cable was passing through the CTs. This made the capacity of the CT as 150/5 Amp. Consequently, the multiplying factor, which is used for determining the total current consumed, instead of five was actually in fact fifteen. In this view of the matter, the account of the petitioner had to be overhauled with multiplying factor of 15 instead of 5. On the basis of this, a demand notice was sent to the consumer on 26.05.2000 (Annexure P-l to the writ petition) for payment of the revised charges of Rs. 7,32,720/-. This demand notice is self-explanatory and it clearly brings out the fact that the account of the petitioner was being overhauled from June 1995 to April, 2000. Vide this notice the petitioner was asked to comply with the said demand within a period of seven days.

Section 26(6) of the Act reads as under:

26. Meters.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(6) Where the difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall 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; but save as aforesaid; the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud; be conclusive proof of such amount of quantity:Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do.

7. Admittedly, the electricity meter was not giving a correct reading. According to the Electricity Board, only a straight cable was passing through Current Transformer and, therefore, instead of taking three turns, it was taking only one turn.

8. Lt. Col. K. P. Singh, appearing for the respondent Electricity Board, on a query put by this Court, has stated that in the present case, petitioner has not tampered with the electricity meter and has not used any device for causing inadequate turns. No willful misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner.

9. Once that is so, the meter was not giving correct reading, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for a period of five years. Section 26(6) of the Act specifically states that in such a situation, electrical quantity supplied cannot be quantified for a period exceeding six months. Therefore, there is no doubt that Section 26(6) of the Act limits the liability of the consumer, only for a period of six months. An ancillary question, which has also arisen is: whether the Current Transformer can be construed as part of the electricity meter or it is some separate device? Learned Counsel, appearing for the Electricity Board, has made an attempt to urge that the defect in the Current Transformer cannot be inferred as a defect of electricity meter.

10. To controvert this, Mr. Sunil Chadha has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in 'The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 183 : AIR 2001 Bom 240 to contend that Current Transformer enables the electric current from being reduced, so that it could pass through the meter without causing any damage to it. Therefore, the Current Transformer is a meter within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act and the defect in Current Transformer is to be understood as a defect in the electricity meter.

11. Lt. Col. K. P. Singh, appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board, is unable to dislodge the legal proposition propounded by Bombay High Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is accepted, order (Annexure P-4) dated 7th December, 2006 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and order (Annexure P-2) dated 23rd August, 2005 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.