[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board And ... vs Hari Singh on 6 March, 2026
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
RSA-34-1995 and RSA-345-1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-34-1995
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another ...Appellants
Versus
Hari Singh ...Respondent
RSA-345-1995
Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda ...Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh ...Respondent
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only the Whether the
Reserved pronounced uploaded on operative part of full judgment
on on the judgment is is
pronounced pronounced
02.02.2026 06.03.2026 06.03.2026 NO YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in both cases.
None for the respondent in both cases.
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of both above noted appeals, as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
2. For the sake of convenience, factual position is being taken from
RSA-34-1995.
3. Appellants-defendants are in second appeal assailing concurrent
finding recorded before Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court.
1 of 5
RSA-34-1995 and RSA-345-1995 -2-
4. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction averring that he is running a factory of cotton ginning and spinning
and is entitled to all benefits of a seasonal industry as per sales manual
instructions. It has been pleaded that plaintiff has been complying with all
conditions of the instructions. Plaintiff has a contract demand of 300 KVA and
a meter of HT type was installed in November, 1989. When plaintiff realized
that meter was not working properly, he sent an intimation on 09.11.1989, Ex.
P-1, which was followed by a reminder dated 21.11.1989, Ex. P-2, but
defendants did not change the meter. Defendants sent an ad hoc bill for month
of November 1989, on the basis of consumption for month of November 1988,
which plaintiff deposited under protest. Challenging the ad hoc billing, plaintiff
filed a suit for declaration. Upon notice, suit was contested by defendants,
wherein seasonal nature of work carried by plaintiff was admitted. It was
conceded that plaintiff had been informing defendants regarding operation of
factory premises. It was averred that on receiving intimation, Ex. P-1, meter
was tested by Mobile Meter Testing Squad on 22.02.1990, and it was found
that counter of KWH meter was not moving due to an internal defect. KVAH
meter was found to be 3.14% fast and MDI was running fast by 3.04%. It has
been stated that bill has been issued on the basis of consumption of November,
1988. On basis of pleadings of parties, issues were framed by Trial Court and
both parties led evidence in support of their respective stand. After hearing the
parties, suit was partly accepted by Trial Court vide judgement and decree
dated 30.07.1992. Defendants were restrained from making a recovery of
disputed bill. Appeal filed by defendants was rejected by learned Additional
District Judge vide judgment dated 14.05.1994. Hence, the present second
2 of 5
RSA-34-1995 and RSA-345-1995 -3-
appeal.
5. By making a reference to circular No.11/1990, Ex. P-6, counsel for
the appellants has argued that appellants-defendants had specified schedule of
rates and method of arriving at these rates, which had been charged from
respondent. He urges that criteria for levying consumption charges has been
laid down in sales manual as per which if one of meter component is not
working, calculation through other methods, load capacity and power
consumed can be arrived at. Counsel asserts that demand raised was valid as
per regulations framed by appellants and findings recorded by both the Courts
are erroneous.
6. There is no representation on behalf of respondent.
7. I have heard counsel for the appellants and considered his
submissions besides examining requisitioned record.
8. The admitted case of parties is that there is a snag in the electricity
meter. The stand taken by appellants in their written statement and also
evidence laid by them is that counter of KWH meter was not moving due to an
internal defect. KVAH meter and MDI were found to be running fast. It is,
therefore, evident that meter was defective. Section 26 of The Indian Electricity
Act, 1910 (for short "the Act"), casts an obligation of electricity board to ensure
that electricity meter is functional and running normally. Sub Section (6) to
Section 26 ibid lays down that in case of any dispute or difference as to whether
any meter is serviceable or not, such a dispute shall be referred to an Electrical
Inspector by either of parties by moving an application. Where an Inspector
finds that meter has ceased to be functional, he shall estimate amount of energy
supplied to consumer during the period of defect and shall levy charge for the
3 of 5
RSA-34-1995 and RSA-345-1995 -4-
same for a period not exceeding six months. Relevant statutory provision reads
as under:-
"26. Meters -
(1) to (5) X X X
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any
meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter
shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an
Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such
Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the
amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity
contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months,
as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been
correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the
absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity.
Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer
applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall
give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his
intention so to do."
9. This provision came up for interpretation in Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Board and others Versus Smt. Basantibai, (1988) 1 SCC 23.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dispute as to whether meter is or is not
correct or it is inherently defective or faulty, not recording correctly the
electricity consumed, can be decided by an Electrical Inspector under the
provisions of the Act. Till the time decision is made, no supplementary bill can
be prepared by Electricity Board estimating energy supplied to consumer as
Board is not empowered to do so by the Act. It has been clarified that Board
cannot threaten to disconnect electricity supply on account of non-payment of
supplementary bill, in the case of a inaccurate meter. This view has been
followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Tej Alloys Limited
Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2019 (3) PLR 655. The
ratio of the judgments is fully applicable to the facts of present case. As
electricity meter installed in the premises of plaintiff was defective, without
4 of 5
RSA-34-1995 and RSA-345-1995 -5-
getting dispute settled from an Electrical Inspector, appellants could not have
raised a bill on ad hoc basis and demand charges from plaintiff-respondent.
10. As a result of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
infirmity in findings recorded by Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
However, it is clarified that till the time dispute is not referred to and
adjudicated by an Electrical Inspector or any other officer/authority/forum
competent to do so under The Electricity Act, 2003, appellants cannot raise any
demand from respondent. Judgment and decree passed by both the Courts are
modified to this extent.
11. Both the appeals are disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
5 of 5
