TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember 1973 base 21st September 1973 to 20th May 1974 . Immediately on the receipt of the said bill, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 26th October, 1977 protesting against the demand so raised. Reference in this letter was made to the verbal enquiries which the petitioner had made from the Desu office at R.K. Puram. He had then been told that the aforesaid meter C was found to be defective and had been replaced in the year 1973 and that now the demand was being calculated in respect of the earlier period from March, 1970 to September, 1973 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter. In his representation the petitioner challenged the legality of the demand so raised. He also asked for the readings of this meter for the respective dates for which the bill was raised. From the tenor of the letter it appears that the petitioner did not accept that the meter which had been replaced was defective. (4) No reply was received to the aforesaid representation but, on the other hand, the petitioner received four notices to show cause as to why his electricity should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of the city bill. It is not necessary to give any further details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e raised for a period which is more than three years after the consumption of electricity. Secondly, the contention is that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act have not been complied with. Thirdly, it is submitted that assuming there can be a demand which is raised in case of a defective meter then the basis of calculating the correct consumption of electricity during the period should be not with reference to the subsequent period but should be with reference to the period earlier than the period in question. (7) In support of his contention that demand cannot be raised if more than three years have elapsed after the consumption of electricity, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of Section 24 of the Electricity Act and Section 455 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The said provisions read as follows : 24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge. - (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may after giving not less than seven clear days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to the electricity consumed and this consumption is recorded by the meter which is installed and maintained by the respondent. Bills are sent, under the Conditions of Supply stipulated by the respondent either monthly or bimonthly. It is not disputed that the period with in which the electricity charges are to be paid is stipulated in the bill so supplied and, further, there is an incentive to pay the electricity charges within a shorter period in which case a rebate is also allowed. (10) Section 24 inter alia, provides that if a person neglects to pay any charge for energy which is due from him then the licensee may give not less than 7 days clear notice in writing and thereafter without prejudice to his right to recover such charge by suit, it can cut off the supply of electricity. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this provision gives an indication that the bill cannot be sent more than three years after the electricity has been consumed because for the amount so due the period of limitation for filing a suit is three years. (11) As I read Section 24 of the Electricity Act and Section 283 of the Corporation Act, it appears to me that the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be sent. According to the Conditions of Supply the bill is to be sent monthly or bimonthly but if no bill is sent who is the loser. The loser obviously is the respondent-licensee who is entitled to receive money for the electricity consumed by a consumer but is not in a position to receive the same unless and until it sends a bill. It is true that considerable hardship may be caused to a consumer if a bill for the electricity charges is sent after lapse of a number of years and the consumer is asked to pay a large amount in one lumpsum, but it must not be forgotten that for all this period of time the consumer uses the money which would have been legitimately due and payable to the licensee for the electricity admittedly consumed. I am quite sure that if and when occasion arises and such large sums of money are demanded, the respondents would act reasonably and allow sufficient time to the consumers to pay the amount so demanded. Unless and until a statute clearly limits the right of an authority to assess, compute or to send a bill, it cannot be said that authority loses its right to recover the money due to it by sending a bill within three years. Where, however, once a bill h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod in excess of six months. In other words, the maximum period for which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter is six months and no more. Therefore, even if a meter has been defective for, say, a period of five years, the revised charge can be for a period not exceeding six months. The reason for this is obvious. If is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the meter. If there is a default committed in this behalf by the licensee and the defective meter is not replaced, then it is obvious that the consumer should not be unduly penalised at a later point of time and a large bill raised. The provision for a bill not to exceed six months would possibly ensure better checking and maintenance by the licensee. (16) When Section 26(6) provides for the Electrical Inspector taking a decision on disputed questions, implicit in this is the- requirement of the Inspector following the principles of natural justice. Before the Inspector, Therefore, gives his opinion as regards the state of the meter and before he comes to the conclusion as to what was the extent of the electricity consumed during the period when the meter was defective, both the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsumer has paid the bills in accordance with the meter reading and the Board issues revised bills on the plea that the meter was not correct which fact is disputed by the consumer, it would be for the Board to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector for getting a decision on the question whether the meter was correct and also for getting the quantity of energy consumed during the period the meter is found to be not correct, estimated. The meter reading subject to the decision of the Electrical Inspector and in the absence of fraud, is conclusive proof of the amount of quantity of the electrical energy consumed. This is specifically stated in Section 26(6). It is, Therefore, the party who wants to challenge the meter reading that has to make the reference to the Electrical Inspector. Till the Electrical Inspector decides that the meter was incorrect, the reading is conclusive and final between the parties. Clause VI(30) of the Schedule which is a general provision, will have no application to the case in question as specific provision is made in the Act in the form of Section 26(6). In my opinion law has been correctly enunciated in the aforesaid decision and I am in compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
