[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs P.Viswanathan on 14 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 4213 OF 2021 1
2026:KER:2885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4213 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LIMITED, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682025.
2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686668.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT:
P.VISWANATHAN
SHIVALAYA, SFCERA 12, MOTHER TERESA LANE, KATHRIKADAVU,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
BY ADV P.VISWANATHAN(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4213 OF 2021 2
2026:KER:2885
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are the Assistant Executive Engineer and the
Assistant Engineer of the KSEB, challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the State
Electricity Ombudsman, in an appeal preferred by the respondent herein.
2. The respondent is having a 3-phase domestic service connection
bearing Consumer No.11898 under the Electrical Section, Kaloor, Ernakulam.
The petitioner had complained on 13.04.2010 that there was an abnormal
sound from the energy meter, that the meter was working at an excessively
fast rate, even when the meter was switched off. The consumption recorded
in the metre was more than 20000 units, and the matter was reported to the
Section Office in writing on the same day.
3. The consumer approached the Central Grievance Redressal
Forum (CGRF) alleging that he was charged for an average of 280 units for a
long period, without replacing the meter. The petitioners also issued a short
assessment bill dated 27.12.2013 for Rs.5506/- by increasing the above
average to 344 units for the above period, in which the meter was faulty. The
Board later cancelled the short assessment bill. The petitioner claimed a
2026:KER:2885
refund of the excess amount billed for 37 bills issued during the time the
meter was faulty. The meter rent was also charged for the above period.
4. The CGRF, after hearing both sides, found that the disputed meter
was replaced only on 25.05.2016 and that the present consumption was only
around 120 units. A physical inspection was also carried out by the
Chairperson. Accordingly, the CGRF directed the Board to revise all the bills
from 4/2010 based on an average consumption of the 3 billing cycles after
installation of the new meter. It directed the excess amount to be refunded
to the respondent herein within one month. The Board was also directed to
refund the meter rent collected from the respondent herein during the
period when the meter was faulty.
5. The consumer was not fully satisfied with the order of the CGRF and
filed an appeal before the Ombudsman. He prayed for revising all the bills
from 4/2010 till 25.05.2016 based on the fixed/minimum charges paid as per
the tariff, and also to refund the excess amount and meter rent collected with
interest at the rate of 16% per annum.
6. The Ombudsman, after hearing both sides and on the admitted
facts stated above, found that though the consumer had reported that the
2026:KER:2885
meter was faulty from 04/2010, the same was replaced only on 25.05.2016. It
was also noticed that the Board had to test the meter once every five years.
Placing reliance on Regulation 125 of the Supply Code, 2014, it was found that
the charges based on the average consumption shall be levied only for a
maximum period of two billing cycles during which time the licensee shall
replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter. Since the Board
did not do so, the Ombudsman varied the order of the CGRF, and held that the
charging during the meter faulted period based on the average consumption
shall be limited for a maximum period of two billing cycles from 4/2010 as
per Regulation 125(2) of the Supply Code, 2014. It also made clear that the
consumer was liable for making payment of fixed/minimum charges for the
remaining period up to 5/2016 as per the applicable tariff in force. The excess
amount collected from the consumer by way of energy charges and meter
rent during the meter faulty period shall be refunded with interest as per
Regulation 134(3) of Supply Code, 2014. This order is challenged by the Board.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after
noticing the undisputed fact that though the consumer herein complained in
writing in the year 2010, the meter was not replaced till 2016, despite which
2026:KER:2885
the consumer had remitted the bills raised. The reasoning in the order of the
Ombudsman, relying, in particular, on Regulations 125 and 134(3) of the
Supply Code, is perfectly in order. Since the consumer was made liable to pay
the amount, which he was not liable to pay, the direction of the Ombudsman
to refund the energy charges and the meter rent with interest is not liable to
be interfered with in a judicial review. If the licensee has the power to collect
a defaulted amount from the consumer with interest, the same is equally
applicable in a case when the licensee is in default. The consumer had to pay
the excess amount for no reason.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there
is no provision for refunding the meter rent, the same cannot be accepted in
this case as the Board took six years to replace the faulty meter, despite a
written complaint.
In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of
the Ombudsman in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
lsn
2026:KER:2885
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 4213 OF 2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM ON
25.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL
FORUM IN COMPLAINT NO.44/2016-17 DATED 08.08.2016
ALONG WITH EXHIBIT 1.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF), CENTRAL REGION BEARING
NO.CGRF-CR/COMP.44/2016-17/328 DATED 30.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE
ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN DATED 30.12.2016 IN APPEAL
PETITION NO.P/073/2016.
