ASSISTANT DIVL ENGINEER ELECTRICIAL OPERATION Vs. G VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the opposite parties i. e. Officers of the Electricity Board against the common orders of the District Forum, Khammam in C. D. Nos. mentioned in the cause title in three batches, whereby it quashed the demand notices issued for various sums mentioned in the said notices.

(2.) The complainants in all the CDs. are having electric service connections to their respective rice and floor mills and other mills under Category III and have been paying the bills regularly from the date of connection of power supply according to the meter readings. Periodically the officers of the opposite parties inspected the meters and noted the units of the power consumption and accordingly issued the bills which the complainants paid. While so, notices were issued to the complainants stating that the meters were not working in one or two phases or the meter is sluggish or stopping intermittently and depending on whether the meter was working in one or two phases and whether it was stopping intermittently or running sluggishly, notices were issued estimating the probable consumption of power and the amounts payable thereon.

(3.) In CD 537/91 against which FA 242/95 was filed, in the notices issued it was not only stated that the meter was functioning in one phase out of three phases, but also the multiplying factor was wrongly applied as 5 instead of 10. All the above complaints were filed questioning the aforesaid demand notices on the ground that the complainants did not tamper with the meter and the non-working of the meter in one phase or two phases or the meter being sluggish or stopping intermittently is a defect in the meter and in which event the dispute has to be referred to the Electrical Inspector for determination under Sec.26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1910 and the opposite parties cannot issue demand notices. It was also stated that the wrong multiplying factor also is due to non-provision of a loop in the meter and that it amounts to defect in the meters. Hence the complainants submitted that the impugned demand notices have to be to quashed.