JOY THOMAS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VUDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a consumer of electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board. In January 1999, the petitioner's electricity meter was found to be faulty. On that ground, a bill was raised for arrears of electricity charges at an average of 2768 units per month for six months prior to the date of detection of fault in the meter, in accordance with Section 26 of the erstwhile Indian Electricity Act. THE petitioner disputed the bill. THE matter was referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Kerala. By Ext.P3 order, the Chief Electrical Inspector reduced the average consumption from 2768 units to 1384 units. Penal charges were also reduced. In the course of entering that finding the Chief Electrical Inspector noted that from 6/94 onwards the Electricity Board was calculating the electricity charges taking the multiplication factor '10' whereas upto 5/94 the multiplication factor was only 5. He came to the conclusion that the actual multiplication factor is only 5. But, he did not enter any specific finding as to what relief should be given to the petitioner in respect of the same, probably because that was not an issue before him at that time. He confined relief to the petitioner only in respect of the additional bill from 1/96 to 1/99. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P7 additional bill was issued to the petitioner. THE petitioner does not dispute Ext.P7 now. THE petitioner submits that for the period from 6/94 to 12/94, the petitioner had been paying excess electricity charges on account of the wrong multiplication factor of '10' adopted by the Electricity Board for calculating electricity charges for the consumption of electricity by the petitioner. THE petitioner would contend that this is found to be correct by the Executive Engineer of the Electrical division by Ext.P8 order and he had infact computed the excess amount paid by the petitioner as Rs.40,573/-. THE petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to refund of that amount with interest. In respect of the same, the petitioner filed a representation before the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Muvattupuzha. That was rejected by Ext.P10 order holding that the average consumption of 1384 units was taken by the Electrical Inspector taking into account that fact also. THE petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, there is no indication anywhere in Ext.P3 that while fixing the average consumption as '1384' , the Chief Electrical Inspector took into account the fact that for the period from 6/94 to 12/95 the petitioner was being charged excess electricity charges, adopting the wrong multiplication factor. THErefore, the petitioner is entitled to set off the excess charges paid by the petitioner for the period from 6/94 to 12/95, which has been computed by the Board themselves as Rs.40,573/-, from the bill now issued to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 order of the Chief Electrical Inspector.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent taking the stand that Ext.P3 order has been passed taking into account the wrong multiplication factor also and the average consumption was fixed at 1384 units taking into account that fact also. According to them, the meter was faulty for a long time and because of the limitation under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the maximum period for which additional bill could be raised was only six months prior to the date when the fault in the meter was found out. That fact was taken into account while fixing the average consumption as 1384 units instead of 2768 units, is the contention raised. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board points out that there is some indication to that effect in paragraph 6 of Ext.P3 order, wherein it is sated thus:

(3.) THEREFORE, I am of the opinion that the excess amount paid by the petitioner for the period from 6/94 to 5/95 on account of wrong multiplication factor adopted by the Board, the amount of which has been computed in Ext.P8 as Rs.40,573/- is liable to be adjusted against bills raised against him. That amount shall be adjusted against any amount due from the petitioner either in payment of Ext.P7 or any other amount or future bills. The writ petition is disposed of as above.