Skip to main content

Power firms can't change meters unilaterally: HC

A power company cannot unilaterally change a consumer's electricity meter because it suspects the instrument is defective, the Bombay high court has ruledin an important order.

Putting the reins on power companies, Justice Ashok Bhangale, while hearing a two-decade-old case, said that if there was a dispute about the working of a meter, in the absence of allegations of fraud against the consumer, the matter has to be referred to the electricity inspector. Moreover, the inspector can decide on additional charges only for a period up to six months prior to when the dispute was raised.

"Provisions of the Indian Electricity Act manifest that the original correct meter once installed acquires a sacrosanct status. After installation, both parties cannot remove or replace the meter," said the judge.

The court said that if the power company or consumer suspects that a meter is defective, then the matter should be brought before the electricity inspector. The company will not be permitted to replace the meter until its correctness is decided by the officer.

"Doubts about a defective meter must be finally scrutinized and decided by the electrical inspector on a reference made to such authority. The board [Maharashtra State Electricity Board] should not be permitted to instal another meter simply by doubting the correctness of the earlier meter installed by it," said the judge. "Any proposal of substitution of one meter by another should not be permitted until the correctness of the installed meter is decided by electrical inspector as incorrect. Any liberty granted to the board to continue to dislodge and dislocate one meter after another meter unreasonably, arbitrarily , whimsically and without the concurrence of the consumer will encourage mischief and high-handedness of the board and such action is bound to seriously impair the rule of law between the parties."

The court was hearing a dispute that dates back to 1993, when the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) issued a notice to Thane-based Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd (HGIL) asking it to pay additional charges as the meter was found to be slow and threatened to disconnect the power supply within 24 hours. HGIL challenged the letter, which was struck down by the civil court in 1999. MSEB challenged the order in the high court.

The court said that the law makes it clear that if a dispute is raised, the limit set is six months prior and the meter reading before that cut-off date is presumed to be correct.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Power-firms-cant-change-meters-unilaterally-HC/articleshow/22955002.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even